Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Household Waste

Andrew Love: What action she is taking to reduce the proportion of household waste that is put into landfill; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: In "Waste Strategy 2000" the Government made clear our determination to minimise waste production and to maximise recycling and composting wherever that is cost-effective to reduce our reliance on landfill.
	We have a landfill tax that encourages diversion of waste away from landfill and there will be further reviews of its rate. We also consulted earlier this year on a system of tradeable landfill permits to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill and to meet the directive targets.
	To achieve more recycling and composting, we have set tough statutory targets, under best value, for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled by 2003–04 and to treble it by 2005–06. To support those targets, we have increased funding to local authorities, including a £140 million ring-fenced grant and £40 million to set up the waste and resources action programme, a company that will tackle market barriers for recycled products.

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. There are two main alternatives to landfill. The first, as she suggested, is recycling and the other is incineration. To encourage both, recent departmental guidance said:
	"Energy from waste plant should be appropriately sized . . . and avoid 'crowding out' recycling".
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong argument to suggest that we should not concentrate incineration in a small number of plants, such as the one in my constituency, but that we should spread them out across the country where the benefits of combined heat and power can be realised?

Margaret Beckett: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for his constituency. He will be aware that they are not a matter for my Department, but I take his point. I am grateful to him for suggesting that we should consider the way in which some incineration might be used and for recognising that there is a role for such use.

Peter Duncan: What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with the increasing problem of fly-tipping in rural areas? She will be aware that it is not only unsightly and a health problem, but places an increasing burden on farmers and landowners who are, after all, responsible for the cost of disposing of it.

Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the problem, as all hon. Members are. The hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties, because much of the material tipped in this way is household waste. We will seek to place a range of pressures on individuals and on local authorities when that is the right approach to minimise the occurrence of such events and to deal with them when they occur.

David Lepper: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the non-metal components of cars whose lives have come to an end are an increasingly important element in landfill sites. Is she aware of the innovative work on the recycling of those components that has been carried out by Professor Peter Gardiner and his colleagues at the university of Brighton and its subsidiary, the Brighton environmental body? Will she ask her officials to give serious consideration to the results of that research?

Margaret Beckett: I am conscious of the excellent work that is being done in Brighton and other areas. I am also conscious of the innovative work that is being done by many people in British research institutes and universities to try to tackle these problems. It is one of the sectors—in the United Kingdom and across the world—where there are opportunities for innovation and for new business to be developed. It has long been my wish to do more to encourage that development.

Jonathan Sayeed: I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to reducing the amount of waste. That is the first step. However, she might not have referred to it because the Government have not managed to reduce the amount of household waste. Reducing household waste and recycling are important waste management strategies.
	It is a pity that, in 1998–99, 19 per cent. of Conservative councils did not make separate provision for the collection of household recyclables, but the Secretary of State might like to know that I have written to each and every one of them. But why is it that, according to Audit Commission figures, 29 per cent. of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils and 42 per cent. of Labour-controlled councils have made no provision whatever?
	We know that the Liberal Democrats are little more than environmental poseurs, but if the Secretary of State cannot persuade her own party to act green, what have the Government been doing for the past four years?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government have been doing, but I am sorry to say that it appears that he has not been listening. I pointed out in my reply that the Government have set demanding targets to double household waste recycling by 2003–04 and almost treble it by 2005–06. We believe that that will transform the position, which I accept is not sufficiently good in areas run by councils of all political shades.
	The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by accusing me of having said nothing about reducing the incidence of waste, and I must point out to him that I referred to that in the first sentence of my reply.

Bill O'Brien: May I remind my right hon. Friend that household waste increases each year, thus posing a great problem for local authorities in particular and communities in general? When did she last meet representatives of the packaging waste industry to reinforce the regulations on the reduction of packaging waste and to ensure that there will be less such waste going into landfill?

Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that household waste is a great problem for local authorities. That is why, although I do not agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I do agree that it is incumbent on us all to do everything that we can to minimise the production of waste.
	I fear that I have not met representatives from the industry's association to which my hon. Friend referred, although my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment meets them on a regular basis. Obviously, it is one of the many organisations that have a pressing claim on my time. In the first week after my appointment, 400 organisations announced their pressing need for a meeting with the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend will understand that it is not always easy to accommodate all those with a genuine need and desire to meet me.

Flood Defences (Wyre Forest)

Richard Taylor: What plans she has to visit Wyre Forest to inspect the proposed flood defences during their construction at Bewdley.

Elliot Morley: I have no such plans at present, but I have carried out a programme of visits this summer to flood and coastal defence schemes under construction and completed, and always welcome the opportunity to do so.

Richard Taylor: I thank the Minister for his reply and assure him that if he decides to visit my constituency, he will receive a warmer welcome than was afforded to the Prime Minister last November. Will he recognise the expertise of the Bewdley residents flood committee, which has organised flood defence fairs across the country, and look favourably on an application from the committee for funding its aim to set up a national flood defence forum and flood action network?

Elliot Morley: I accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to Bewdley, and the people were very grateful to him for taking the trouble to visit when they were suffering the effects of floods. I certainly pay tribute to the residents committee. Its members came to see me in London, and I was impressed by their ideas as well as their energy and drive. The committee has not submitted proposals for a national forum directly to the Department, but if it wanted to do so, I would give them careful consideration.

Michael Foster: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance, if not at the Dispatch Box then perhaps in writing, that when flood defences are constructed in Bewdley, they will not have a detrimental effect downstream in Worcester? When the Environment Agency announces plans for flood defences in Worcester, will he do all that he can to make sure that the cash is available to pay for them?

Elliot Morley: By 2003, expenditure on flood and coastal defences will have increased by about 50 per cent. since last year. We recognise that there is a need for more resources. I can assure my hon. Friend that the assessment of any flood defence scheme takes into account any possible detrimental effects downstream or within the catchment area. We are looking at the Severn as part of a catchment area study, which will include his area.

John Greenway: The constituents of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) have been in touch with me more than once because North Yorkshire shares the problem of flooding. I listened carefully to their suggestions on establishing a national flood defence forum, an idea that I commend to the Minister.
	Surely the problem is that there is inadequate direction from Government. There is insufficient responsibility because far too many agencies are involved in the provision of flood defences. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have suffered from the problem in the past few months as a result of the October flooding. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not satisfied with the present arrangements and will introduce proposals so that central Government ensure that there is strong Executive power to improve and strengthen our flood defences?

Elliot Morley: Following the recommendations of the former Agriculture Committee, we are carrying out a full funding review of flood and coastal defence, the results of which will be published shortly. Flood and coastal defence is a shared responsibility between central and local government. There is an important element of local democracy because local councils are represented on regional flood defence committees. That is a strength although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are sometimes weaknesses in local democracy and problems with local issues.

Recycling

Ian Lucas: What assessment she has made of the effect a tax on incineration set at the same level as the landfill tax would have on the level of recycling carried out by local authorities in England and Wales.

Michael Meacher: We have set local authority statutory targets that will almost triple recycling and composting of household waste from the 1998–99 baseline by 2005–06, as my right hon. Friend said. We have set up the waste and resources action programme to foster markets for recycled materials. We consulted on a system of tradeable permits for biodegradable municipal waste. Given those instruments, I doubt whether an incineration tax is needed at this stage to secure our main priority of diverting waste from landfill to recycling.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is great concern in my constituency about the relative amount of recycling and incineration outlined in a recent application to site a waste recovery centre there? What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the recycling targets set out in "Waste Strategy 2000" are met and that the amount of future incineration is minimised?

Michael Meacher: When we set statutory recycling targets, sanctions are attached to ensure that they are achieved. I assure my hon. Friend that they will be. We will keep track of all local authorities to ensure that they are making progress and will want to know why if they are not. We are offering managerial advice as part of the waste resources action programme. If need be, we can take action to put in place managerial systems that will deliver targets in each local authority.
	I understand that a waste management private finance initiative project is being considered for Wrexham. A major part of that will be a facility that is designed, built, financed and operated by the private sector and will include incineration. That is still at the procurement stage. The business plan has to be passed by the Minister for Finance in the Welsh Assembly. Planning consent is then needed. However, whatever Wrexham decides, it must meet its recycling targets.

Stephen O'Brien: As the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) neighbours Eddisbury, I have an equal interest in that plant and proposal. How can the Minister square the tax answers, which affect both England and Wales, with the decoupling of planning as a result of the devolution arrangements? My constituents might be most affected by the fallout from that incineration plant but have no rights of representation in the planning process. They are deeply concerned about that.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises the devolution arrangements. It is our view that all reasonable powers should be devolved to the Assembly in the case of Wales and the Executive in the case of Scotland, and that is what we have done. However, tax is not a devolved matter. That is why the recommendation that I understand is in the Welsh draft waste management strategy—the Assembly's initial view—that there should be a tax on incineration will be considered duly by the United Kingdom Government, although the matter is of course entirely for the Treasury.

Syd Rapson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the landfill tax credit scheme, whereby tax is recycled to local partnerships to create environmental schemes for areas that are affected by landfill. There is some concern that that scheme will be scrapped. I urge the Government to reconsider the effects of doing so, as we in Portsmouth have certainly benefited from it and want it to continue.

Michael Meacher: I am well aware of the mixed views on the landfill tax credit scheme. There is no question but that it has benefited many environmental projects, particularly to do with wildlife and biodiversity. Whatever changes might be made in any new arrangements—let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that a decision has not yet been taken—I would be extremely anxious to ensure that such benefits were secured. However, the proportion of the moneys that are raised by the credit scheme that goes into local recycling is not nearly enough. We have used indicative targets to try to increase it, but the issue remains whether that is adequate.

John Pugh: Will the Minister acknowledge that the way in which waste authorities apportion local council landfill tax is not always fair and equitable? A poor example in that respect is the Merseyside waste disposal authority. Some local authorities charge not by the tonne but by population and council tax banding, and therefore have no financial incentive to recycle. Will he consider tightening guidance given to waste disposal authorities to ensure that those that recycle the most pay the least?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The overwhelming thrust of the Government's waste management strategy is to achieve the maximum feasible increase in recycling. He is right that the structure of the allocation of moneys does not always optimise that. We are certainly considering his point.

Landfill Sites

Phyllis Starkey: If she will make a statement on the powers of the Environment Agency to regulate landfill sites.

Michael Meacher: Waste disposal sites including landfills are regulated by the Environment Agency using powers in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

Phyllis Starkey: In the first seven months of this year, my constituents in Bletchley were subjected to incredibly high levels of hydrogen sulphide emissions from the landfill at Shanks Waste Services Ltd. in Newton Longville. The Environment Agency has now required Shanks to bring the situation under control and the nuisance appears to have ceased. I believe that charges are being brought against Shanks for breaches of the licence conditions. However, there is great concern among my constituents that the Environment Agency did not detect the problems as they were building up and seemed to take action only once my constituents had suffered a very high level of nuisance and there was a potential health hazard.
	Will the Minister undertake to investigate whether the Environment Agency's failure was due to it having inadequate powers to undertake proper monitoring or due simply to inadequately exercised powers?

Michael Meacher: I do not believe that the existing powers are inadequate, and I hear what my hon. Friend says about the exercise of those powers. The Environment Agency served four enforcement notices on Shanks, the landfill operator, in February for compliance by April.
	The operator failed to comply on any count and, therefore, the agency suspended its licence on 1 May. As a result, the operator undertook some major improvements on the site, and the suspension has now been lifted, but the agency is still making, and will continue to make, weekly unannounced inspections of the site to assess compliance with the licence conditions and, as my hon. Friend said, it is also prosecuting the operator for breach of licence. I take the point, which she made, that the agency did not act fast enough. If she will give me the evidence, I will certainly pursue it.

James Gray: Of course, we entirely support the Government's laudable aim of reducing landfill by increasing recycling, but in that context what does the Minister think about the activities of Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council, which recently announced that it will do away with the free collection of household goods for recycling and introduce a charge instead? To facilitate that, it has opened a recycling centre that is miles and miles away from anyone who wants to recycle. What does the Minister think about that?

Michael Meacher: I always seek to be cautious in intruding local grief, but I am aware of the very real problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions because the Liberal-controlled council in Oldham has done exactly the same thing. Perhaps he and I can get together to monitor the effects that the rather curious and perverse charge may have. The charge is unwise and imprudent. It raises a small amount of money, but produces a very severe disincentive to recycle, which, I thought, we all wanted to encourage.

Tony McWalter: I am disappointed about my right hon. Friend's answer because there seem to be major limitations in the Environment Agency's powers. For example, when a so-called golf course was being constructed in my area and lorry loads of topsoil were coming out of the site and hundreds of lorry loads of rubbish were going into it every day, the Environment Agency kept telling us that it could inspect the lorries, but could not inspect the apparent golf course. I hope that he realises that the Environment Agency is saying that it sometimes does not have the powers to do what it should.

Michael Meacher: This is an unusual question session because I have to tell my hon. Friend that in Oldham we, too, have what he calls a so-called golf course, which has been used for the tipping of materials, and the residents have been concerned about their potentially hazardous nature. In fact, answers have been given and there have been assurances that the materials are not hazardous. The issue arises out of waste management licence exemptions, and I share the view that those exemptions have been granted too readily and that they need to be tightened up. If he will give me details of his case, that will certainly add to the dossier that will help me to take some action.

Peter Ainsworth: Has the Minister had a chance to consult the Environment Agency about the prospect of having to dispose of up to 1 million old fridges each year because of Government incompetence? Are they now destined for landfill sites? When Ministers blithely signed up to EC regulation 2037 on products containing CFCs, did they simply overlook the fact that it is almost impossible to implement? The Department has now told local authorities that it will urgently review the situation. I should hope so—there has been a chance urgently to review the situation for the past four years. Is not "urgent review" Labour-speak for "haven't got a clue"? If not, what exactly are the Government's plans?

Michael Meacher: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is new to these matters, but I can assure him that, as he might well expect, when the issue was discussed in the Environment Council, the chlorofluorocarbon content of used fridges was exhaustively discussed. The issue of exports and effects on other countries was carefully examined. We are, of course, looking at the technology; in fact, a great deal of work has been done on the technology of removing CFCs from fridges and storing them safely. I hope that he does not take the view that fridges should continue to be landfilled.
	Of course changes, reforms and improvements take place all the time but, in 20 years under the Conservative Government, fridges were just chucked into landfills. We do not think that that is proper; a more environmentally sensitive way of dealing with the problem is needed, and we are providing it.

Radioactive Waste

David Chaytor: What her policy is on the management of radioactive waste.

Margaret Beckett: The Government and the devolved Administrations published the consultation paper, "Managing radioactive waste safely" on 12 September. We propose a programme of national debate and research, leading to scientifically sound decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste which, we hope, will inspire greater public confidence across the United Kingdom.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Can she give the House the latest estimates of the cost of decommissioning existing power stations and the management of waste? Would it be wildly inaccurate to suggest that that cost is in the region of £85 billion? Who will bear the cost regarding existing stockpiles of waste? Will she seek to ensure that, if there is any new nuclear build following the publication of the energy review in December, the costs of the management of waste are built into the initial economics of power generation?
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the recent horrific evidence of terrorist groups gaining access to biological materials of warfare, it is now only a matter of time before they gain access to nuclear materials as weapons of war? Has she discussed that matter with—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too much for the Secretary of State to take in.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right; the figure of £85 billion is correct, and includes all civil, military, public and private radioactive waste as well as the costs of decommissioning. A rough breakdown of the figure is that some £34 billion relates to British Nuclear Fuels plc; some £30 billion to Ministry of Defence matters; some £7 billion to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and some £14 billion to British Energy. The final cost of managing such waste depends on the decisions made in the light of the consultation that we initiated and, indeed, on the classification of radioactive waste.
	My hon. Friend asked who will bear the costs of handling such waste; one way or another, our economy will bear those costs in some capacity. He asked about the performance and innovation unit review; he will know that that process is under way and any recommendations that it might make are some distance away. However, he is certainly correct; I am mindful that, on a number of occasions, those outside Government have long advised that the full knock-on costs of such projects should be part of the decision-making structure at the beginning, not something that emerges at the end. We certainly believe that that is a sound basis for planning.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State explain how her recent decision to give the go-ahead to the Sellafield mixed oxide plant fits into her radioactive waste management strategy? Given that the Irish Government are now mounting a legal challenge and Sellafield has a history of leaks and fraudulent data, there is a lack of confidence in the management of the plant. Will she explain why in her announcement she concentrated on the economic aspects of the development, rather than the environmental aspects? Does she not recognise that there is considerable concern, not only about leakage from the plant but, in the post-September 11 circumstances, about the risk of an attack on shipments of plutonium by suicide terrorists? Has she made an evaluation of that, or does she not think that she should?

Margaret Beckett: To take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, he must be aware that that issue has been evaluated. There are risks in the existence of such a plant and those risks are little changed by the decision that was made. However, whether they made a difference was carefully considered.
	The hon. Gentleman asks how the plant fits in. It is in the public domain that during the anticipated operational lifetime of the plant—a considerable number of years—the expectation is that it will add only about 1 per cent. to the total level of intermediate level waste now generated at Sellafield. The decision that the plant should go ahead was based on a range of environmental and other considerations.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why I concentrated on the economic aspect. There is a mixture of issues here. First, a legal duty was laid on myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, the nature of which is set down in the basic standards enshrined in statute. Secondly, not only have there been extensive and numerous consultations on the issue during the past three or four years, but the Environment Agency recommended that the environmental aspects did not impede going ahead with the plant and, having done all the independent economic assessments, recommended that the plant should go ahead.

Judy Mallaber: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Environment Agency has asked Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd. to apply for new authorisations for its work in Derby and the associated approval since 1966 for the dumping of gloves, coveralls and other items contaminated with low-level radioactive waste at Hilts Quarry at Crich in my constituency. Is she aware that since the Environment Agency started looking in detail at the application, and with the advent of a local protest group, Rolls-Royce has somehow managed to reduce its waste substantially, now tipping a lorry load only once every eight weeks instead of weekly? Will she ensure that the agency applies similar pressure to minimise waste elsewhere? I realise that she cannot comment on an application currently being determined, but will she look sympathetically at any request to transfer the Rolls-Royce waste to a more secure site that is not unlined and in a village next to a school?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend accepts, I am aware of the basic issue, and it is clear from what she said that she is aware that these are matters for the Environment Agency. I freely confess that I am not aware whether the amount of waste has been substantially reduced or is simply being transported less often. However, those are issues that the Environment Agency, with the company, keeps under review and we retain information on those matters from time to time.

Michael Fabricant: In the light of the present situation, does the Government have a view regarding the transportation of waste through residential areas, especially London?

Margaret Beckett: The transportation of waste is always a sensitive and difficult issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that over the years many studies have been carried out and the issue of how to maintain high security is always kept under review.

Farming

Paul Flynn: What the contribution of the farming industry was as a proportion of English gross domestic product in the latest year for which figures are available; and what the average figure is for the last five years.

Elliot Morley: The contribution of the farming industry as a proportion of English gross domestic product in 2000 was £5 billion—0.7 per cent. The average contribution during the years 1996 to 2000 was 1 per cent.

Paul Flynn: When subsidies are taken into account, the total contribution made by agriculture in the four years before foot and mouth was less than 0.5 per cent., compared with manufacturing industry which contributes 20 per cent. We know that the contribution is now less than zero. We all feel sympathy with the farming industry as a result of the suffering caused by foot and mouth, but is it reasonable to expect manufacturing industry, particularly the steel industry which is facing a new crisis, to contribute to and subsidise just one industry alone? Is not the answer to listen to what Lord Haskins is saying today and for farming to be made more entrepreneurial in future, rather than continue with the mistake that we have made in farming since the war where the industry has been subsidy sensitive but market blind?

Elliot Morley: My noble Friend Lord Haskins is a farmer and business man. His assessment is important and will be listened to carefully by the entire farming industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the future for farmers is to become closer to the market and more consumer and customer oriented. The present level of subsidies to agriculture is not sustainable in the long term—it is not good for the consumer or the environment, and it has not been good for farmers as it has distorted the market. The Food and Farming Commission, which the Government have set up, will provide important pointers for the future of farming. There is no doubt that changes need to be made: we live in a changing and dynamic society, and agriculture is part of that.

David Curry: The Minister is aware of the contribution made by the sheep industry to gross domestic product, especially in the uplands. In the light of that, can he explain the total confusion that has arisen over the research programme into BSE in sheep? Is he aware that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has apparently cancelled the meeting at which that was to be discussed? At 10.30 last night, DEFRA apparently put out a press release about it.
	On the radio news this morning, it was said that the samples that were being examined to find out whether there was BSE in sheep were actually samples from cows. A state of total confusion has descended, and the matter is of colossal importance to the entire agricultural industry. Can the Minister tell us what is happening? If he cannot tell us now, will he come back to the House as soon as possible and be specific about it?

Elliot Morley: In all matters relating to BSE and animal health, the Government have been open and transparent. For that reason, the Government and our Department commissioned DNA testing in relation to the long-term experiment being carried out by Professor Bostock and the Institute for Animal Health. There were some concerns that there may be contamination by bovine brain material in the experiment. The step taken was appropriate and prudent, in order to control the quality of the research.
	As it happened, the results of the DNA testing, which did not come out until this week, demonstrated that there was serious contamination of the sample, and that in fact it was predominantly bovine brain material. There will have to be a full audit trail and evaluation of the experiment. It is therefore not surprising that SEAC has cancelled the meeting scheduled for Friday until we can evaluate the situation carefully.

Paddy Tipping: But is it not the case that farming produces a wider economic contribution to the rural economy, in that it provides a landscape and an environment that people wish to visit? Given that, is it not rather strange that there are those who argue against compensation for farming instead of tourism, and against greater investment for rural rather than urban areas? Those things are interdependent. Should not that be the policy that we support?

Elliot Morley: All independent studies and our recent rural White Paper demonstrate the clear interdependence between urban and rural areas, and between agriculture and other rural businesses, including tourism and the leisure sector. Agriculture is the country's biggest land user, so it has a key role not only in food production, which is its primary objective, but landscape, habitat and biodiversity measures. For those reasons, the Government are committed to shifting the current damaging and market-distorting subsidies in the common agricultural policy from production support to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, the rural development structure, so that we can develop all those aspects in a holistic and integrated way that will benefit agriculture, the rural economy and the economy generally.

David Burnside: Does the Minister share my concern, which is also the concern of the entire farming community, that in the departmental strategic review of policy, farming was listed as only the fifth priority? Is it not about time that the Government started to build confidence by restoring agriculture to the departmental title of the Department, and followed that up with more constructive policies for the farming community?

Elliot Morley: I think that it is a serious mistake to try to apply a league table of priorities to Departments' aims and objectives. DEFRA was formed, quite rightly, to bring together a range of environmental, land-use objectives in an integrated way. I believe that that is the view of the majority in the House and certainly the majority of people outside the House, as well as in the agricultural sector. In that respect, those are all important issues. DEFRA covers not just agriculture but environmental issues, land use, forestry, floods and environmental control. It is a strength of the Department that it does so, and we should not try to prioritise the list or draw up league tables.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister talks about transparency; the only thing that is transparent is the muddle and confusion that the Government have brought to this whole area of their competence. Is he aware that farmers are saying that the Government do not understand or care; that it is no good telling farmers that they must change without telling them how; that they need not lectures from Ministers but clarity and leadership; and that, with earnings down to a pathetic £2,500 a year they cannot invest in the future? How can farmers be entrepreneurs when they have no funds to invest? Does the Minister accept that if there is no viable future for farming, it will not just be the rural economy that suffers, but the whole economy, our environment and millions of people and businesses, whether they live in the countryside or the towns?

Elliot Morley: Of course farming has suffered a decline in income, but that has gone on for years. It is not a recent issue. Farming has been going through structural changes for a very long time—since 1945—and those changes will continue. Our job is to try to work in partnership with the industry to manage those changes and assist farmers. We contribute some £3 billion a year to agriculture, which is a high level of subsidy.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about understanding. In my frequent meetings with farmers and land-use managers, they say that they very much appreciate the direction that the Government are taking. Those who use the word "understanding" often measure it by the size of the cheque that they are asking for.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister's reply reveals the extraordinary complacency that the Government have shown throughout their handling of foot and mouth and towards the countryside in general. I agree that there are no quick fixes, but the Government could make a start today by announcing that they will claim the £57 million compensation available under EU rules—but for just another 13 days. Does the Minister accept that failure to do so will simply confirm the widely held view that the Government have turned their back on rural Britain?

Elliot Morley: This demonstrates the bare-faced cheek and hypocrisy of the Opposition. The Conservative party opposed the introduction of agrimonetary compensation measures within the Council of Ministers and has been arguing for cuts in public expenditure, yet demands increases in public spending. The two do not match because there is no logic. The hon. Gentleman's question is an example of his party's empty promises and rhetoric on countryside issues.

Foot and Mouth

Kevin Brennan: How many animals have been culled in (a) England and (b) Wales as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and how many of the carcases were disposed of in each country.

Margaret Beckett: In round figures, some 2.84 million animals have been slaughtered in England and almost 326,000 in Wales. Just over 2.9 million carcases were disposed of in England and 224,000 in Wales. I can provide my hon. Friend with a more precise breakdown of those figures in writing if he wishes.

Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the topographical nature of Wales and the lack of rendering facilities make it particularly difficult to dispose of large numbers of carcases within Wales? Do not the figures show the benefit of Wales being a devolved nation within the United Kingdom, rather than following the selfish separatist agenda of the nationalists?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—it is one of the many areas in which the benefits of devolution are demonstrable. I entirely take his point about the different circumstances and conditions that apply in Wales and it is right that it is Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly who have been able to take the decisions in that respect.

Ann Winterton: Bearing it in mind that millions of animals were slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, why have the Government set their face against holding a full, independent and public inquiry into its cause and handling? Such an inquiry has been called for by every rural organisation, without exception. The outbreak has cost taxpayers almost £2 billion. Surely, they have a right to learn the truth and to be told how the Government propose to prevent infection from being reimported into the United Kingdom in the near future.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady refers to a cost to the economy of almost £2 billion. That figure is correct, but it contrasts slightly with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who suggested that the Government had not been prepared to spend any money to assist the industry.
	The thrust of the hon. Lady's question, however, was about inquiries. Of course, there is a general demand for public inquiries. Whenever anybody wants an inquiry into anything, everybody always says that they want a full public inquiry. It is only very rarely, however, that people define what they mean by that term. I say to her, as I have said repeatedly in the House, that the definition is very specific, as she will know. Indeed, the arrangements for a full public inquiry are so substantial that a Prime Minister's decision is required even to establish one. That means that they tend to be extremely time consuming and costly.
	The Government have proposed an inquiry structure with three separate and independent components, which means that a dedicated group of scientists will, as scientists—

Ann Winterton: Not good enough.

Margaret Beckett: The Royal Society, conducting a scientific investigation, is not good enough? That is absolute rubbish, and it shows the posturing and stupidity of the Opposition.
	Scientists are carrying out the scientific inquiry and an independent person is carrying out the inquiry into what specifically happened in the outbreak and what can be learned for good or ill. There is a separate process, which is not clouding its discussion and decisions with consideration of what specifically happened, but looking to the future. Indeed, it is looking to the questions asked by the hon. Member for East Surrey a moment ago—the future of farming and agriculture in the United Kingdom, how can they be prosperous and how can we have a prosperous rural economy. Three separate issues are being handled separately and everyone will be acting independently. The whole inquiry will report long before any public inquiry would have done so. That seems much better than the Opposition's posturing.

Flood Defences (York)

Hugh Bayley: When the Environment Agency will complete its assessment of the November 2000 flood of the Yorkshire Ouse and the feasibility of strengthening the City of York's flood defences.

Elliot Morley: I understand that the Environment Agency's preliminary strategic review for the River Ouse catchment is due for completion early in 2002. The findings of this strategy review and others that the agency is undertaking in the Yorkshire region will inform its plans for a prioritised programme of feasibility studies and capital works. Urgent repairs to York's defences were carried out following last year's floods.

Hugh Bayley: The Environment Agency's most recent estimate of the cost of reinforcing York's flood defences is about £11 million. That will require a substantial increase in the regional flood defence committee's budget, in terms both of the Government's contribution and that of the local authority. Is my hon. Friend prepared to meet me to discuss those respective contributions, as well as the possibility of revising the rules for local authority contributions? Currently, those rules allow local authorities in upland areas to veto the raising of revenue for building vital flood defences in lowland areas, especially in the Vale of York.

Elliot Morley: There is no doubt that those who are in charge of regional flood defences must face up to their responsibilities. I accept that, in the Yorkshire region, there is a backlog of investment in relation to long-term repairs, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of additional resources have gone into the York defences, as well as others throughout the country. An extra £11 million was made available for this year alone, in the aftermath of last year's floods, to strengthen and repair defences. One of them was the Foss barrier, which received additional expenditure.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plight of residents who were evacuated in the vale of York and in the Rawcliffe part of the city of York? Will he press the Environment Agency to establish a pumping station? Preferably, a permanent one should be established, but at the very least a mobile station is needed to prevent the water from Blue beck and all the nasties produced by sewage treatment from coming back into those houses again this year.

Elliot Morley: As the hon. Lady knows, I am always willing to meet hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), to discuss issues of concern in their constituencies relating to flood defence. In regard to the pumping station, the hon. Lady will be aware that I have met local residents and the parish council so I understand the concerns of local people. It depends on environmental factors, cost-benefit considerations, how often the pump will be used and whether there are other ways in which the area can be defended. However, I am more than willing to consider all representations and to meet hon. Members.

Welfare-friendly Farming

Colin Burgon: What plans she has to introduce welfare friendly farming systems.

Margaret Beckett: Encouraging high animal welfare standards on farms is at the heart of Government policy. We have comprehensive legislation in place, supported by species-specific welfare codes. In addition, we run advisory campaigns for farmers on welfare issues and commit substantial sums to farm animal welfare research.

Colin Burgon: As a townie and a meat eater, I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she any plans to meet the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to discuss its excellent 10-point sustainable welfare-friendly farming methods? Will she be discussing with the Soil Association its advocacy of the scheme to vaccinate animals rather than continue with the horrific mass slaughter of cattle that we have seen during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease? Does she agree that even townspeople should be involved in the widespread debate that we should be having about the future of agriculture and that we should be looking for radical changes in many of the current practices in the farming industry?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend has asked me about two slightly different issues. I accept entirely his view that one does not have to be a vegetarian to care about animal welfare, or indeed to live in the countryside. I accept his points about the very good work carried out on several fronts by the RSPCA.
	My hon. Friend referred to vaccination rather than slaughter. Throughout the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the Government have continually kept under review and consideration whether vaccination can play a constructive role and whether it would assist. I remind him that it does not seem to be widely reported or understood that at present it is the approach not only of the British Government but right across the European Union, including Holland, for example, that vaccination is undertaken as a prelude to slaughter and not instead of it.
	These are difficult issues that must be considered. Together with the Dutch Government, we are sponsoring a conference later in the autumn to discuss these policy issues, but it is sadly not the case that there is a lovely, simple animal welfare-friendly option that would solve all the problems and would be easy to implement at any stage in any outbreak, let alone the current one.

Colin Breed: We welcome very much the Government's animal welfare-friendly plans, but can the Secretary of State confirm that any costs associated with such plans will not fall upon British agriculture, rendering it more uncompetitive than it already is against its European competitors?

Margaret Beckett: Yet another plea from a different quarter for more money from a party that claims to be concerned about the state of the economy. Of course we recognise that there may be costs associated with these measures and we do our best to make sure that what high standards require is adequately assessed, but we do not go over the top. The approach that we adopt—and I am slightly surprised to hear that it might not be the approach of the Liberal Democrats—is to seek to ensure that higher animal welfare standards are observed not only here, but across the European Union. We consider that that is the right course of action to make sure that people are competing on the same fair basis rather than going for the cheapest option and accepting the damage to animal welfare that that might involve.

Fishing (Essex)

David Amess: What recent representations she has received on the impact of the total allowable catch on fishing communities in Essex.

Elliot Morley: I regularly receive representations on all fishing issues from all over the country.

David Amess: Is the Minister aware that Leigh-on-Sea fishermen feel that if the cuts continue it will be uneconomic to go to sea and they would like levels to be underpinned? If he cannot achieve that, will he consider supporting our bid for European funding for a local hatchery, which would help to conserve stocks and offer alternative job opportunities?

Elliot Morley: I realise that there is pressure on inshore fishermen when there are stock reductions because of pressure on quota, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is underpinning on, for example, sole, which will benefit his local inshore fishermen. I understand that my officials have met his constituents, who are proposing schemes under this budget, and that they will give advice and pursue the matter.

Rural Recovery (Cumbria)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to written question No. 8.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Recovery (Cumbria)

Eric Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Lord Haskins will make his report on rural recovery in Cumbria; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: First, let me apologise. I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but, in view of the many strictures about announcements being made outside the House rather than inside, I thought it right to try to make it known to the House that the Government welcome the report by Lord Haskins that was published this morning. We are grateful to Lord Haskins for his work in consulting stakeholders in Cumbria and other areas affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and for producing a lucid and thoughtful report. We shall respond to all his recommendations shortly.
	As the House may know, Lord Haskins' main recommendation stated that affected small businesses needed help to see them through the winter. I am pleased to be able to announce an extension of the business recovery fund in the worst-affected regions. Some £14 million of central Government funding has been made available, plus £10 million from reprioritisation within the regional development agencies' budgets. That will provide an extra £24 million for rural recovery through grants to individual businesses and other measures such as tourism promotion. We shall consider later in the year whether it is possible to provide more.
	I apologise to the Opposition for not having been able to give them more notice of this announcement; but, as I have said, I thought it right to share the information with the House at the earliest opportunity.

Eric Martlew: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking the question. I also thank the Secretary of State for requesting it.
	I am impressed by the report, which reaches conclusions that I consider essential in relation to Cumbria. We have had a major problem; the county's economy has gone into recession, although it will recover well. Lord Haskins makes 12 recommendations for the short term. The fifth is that £40 million should be made available for business recovery in the areas concerned, so I am rather disappointed that my right hon. Friend has announced only £24 million. Will she discuss with the Treasury whether the extra money is available? Without extra money, and extra money soon, good businesses in Cumbria and throughout the country that have been affected by foot and mouth will go bankrupt.

Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the problems experienced in Cumbria, which he and many other Members representing the county have frequently drawn to the House's attention. I also accept that he is a little disappointed that I cannot provide at once the full sum identified by Lord Haskins—although I think that he will find that Lord Haskins, along with others, will feel that this is very much a step in the right direction.

Peter Ainsworth: This is a confused and innovative way of making an announcement to the House. I understand that no copies of the Haskins report are available in the Vote Office, although copies were made available to the media before DEFRA questions. I have managed to obtain a copy by dint of ingenuity, but it is not possible to ask questions and read at the same time. This is not an easy situation for any Member. If the Haskins report is as important as the Government have made out, surely it merited a full and proper statement to the House rather than the strange procedure that is taking place. We will, of course, study the report with great care.
	Can the right hon. Lady say how much of the new money that she has announced is, in fact, new money? Does she accept that the Cumbria foot and mouth taskforce estimated that at least £150 million of help was needed in the county? Lord Haskins recommends considerably less, and I understand that she wants to cut the amount further. Will she comment on that?
	Will the right hon. Lady act on the recommendation that an extra £40 million should be put into the business recovery fund, half of which is due to Cumbria? Can that amount be provided swiftly? Many businesses in Cumbria simply will not survive the winter without the extra help that is needed so urgently. When will she further discuss the matter and the recommendations with her right hon. Friends in the Treasury, and when will she report? I note that she says that she will report shortly, but rural Britain and Cumbria in particular would like a clear date.
	Farmers in Cumbria and elsewhere depend on livestock markets. Will the right hon. Lady reaffirm her support for livestock markets, despite the report's recommendation that they need to be better regulated? Are not the main opponents of livestock markets the big food processing companies such as Northern Foods, which is, of course, run by Lord Haskins?

Margaret Beckett: I welcome all members of the Opposition Front-Bench team to their new responsibilities, which I should have done previously. I apologise to them.
	I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that this procedure is innovative—it has been adopted before. I also say to him and the House that, had there been a question on the Order Paper to which I could have attached the announcement, I would certainly have done so. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House groans, but if he reads the Order Paper he will find that even his ingenuity would have been taxed by working the announcement into any of the questions that were before us.
	I simply say to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that this is not a Government report; it is Lord Haskins' report to the Government. It is available in the Library, and if it is not yet available in the Vote Office I regret that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. It is of course true that other taskforces and bodies have made a range of recommendations, all of which run to hundreds of millions of pounds. My understanding is that one of Lord Haskins' observations is that those making such recommendations should be more realistic.
	When I say shortly, I mean shortly. I shall pursue a discussion on all the various recommendations that are made. The recommendation on livestock markets is one that we shall examine when we consider the report. Of course I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman as he seeks to assimilate what he has been asked to comment on while devising his questions: Labour Members had years of practice at that.

David Drew: I very much welcome the report, which has come not a moment too soon. I am aware that it concentrates on Cumbria, but many other parts of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.

David Drew: The report relates to other parts of the country, even though Cumbria was apparently the worst affected. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that some dates by which businesses must appeal for help can be extended, given that certain ones have passed? Will she also consider ways in which her ministerial team can go out and talk to farmers about how to move towards a more sustainable food policy?

Margaret Beckett: On my hon. Friend's last point, not only my team but the policy commission are engaged in that debate. I understand his points about businesses. One aspect that has led us to respond so speedily to the publication of the report is an understanding of the number of businesses that are in the queue, so to speak, and that have been affected by the existing position.
	I did not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for East Surrey about whether the money is new. It is all money that will be newly available to people in such circumstances. I find the pretence that money that is available for the purposes for which it is to be used is somehow not available to be artificial and ridiculous.

Tim Collins: Cumbria has been through a horrendous nine months and I am afraid that the Government's reaction today is yet another example of too little, too late. May I press the Secretary of State specifically on Lord Haskins' recommendation that the extension of the amnesty for business rate and VAT payments should run to April next year? Will she have urgent discussions with the Treasury on that recommendation? If those bills are presented in the next few months, a large number of businesses will go bankrupt.
	Will the right hon. Lady comment on the extraordinary statement in Lord Haskins' report that Government support should be provided only to those businesses that deserve to survive? Will she clarify exactly which businesses, in the Government's view, deserve to survive? I can tell her that in my constituency and throughout the county of Cumbria a large number of businesses that deserved to survive are already bust.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct and, naturally, I accept that the situation in Cumbria has been terrible. Members throughout the House recognise that. I take on board his further points about the extension of the amnesty. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and I have been discussing and will continue to discuss these issues. I take this opportunity to tell the House that the rural taskforce report, on which my right hon. Friend has been engaged, will also be published later this afternoon and made available in the House.

Jon Owen Jones: We have just heard that the total contribution of agriculture to our GDP is worth £5 billion. Is the Secretary of State aware that The Economist calculates that cannabis dealing in the United Kingdom is worth more than £1 billion? Has Lord Haskins considered the enormous contribution that could be made by legalising cannabis and producing the crop in the United Kingdom, which would be perfectly possible—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome any circumstance that requires Ministers to make a statement about publications that have been issued outside. It is unfortunate, however, that it was not possible to have a full statement.
	What does Lord Haskins' report, as it applies to Cumbria, imply for the rest of England and Wales in terms of compensation requirements, and what recommendations will flow from that? Given that the rural taskforce has also reported today to the Prime Minister—I understand that the report has just been published—can the Secretary of State say anything about that report, which I understand calls for more extensive support for businesses across the rural community? May we have a debate in the House about both reports, rather than a hurried statement tacked on to the end of Question Time?

Margaret Beckett: With respect, the Government have tried, without unduly disrupting business, to ensure that the announcement of our reaction to the report has been made in the House. The breakdown and the justification for it are issues that we can consider at greater length. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter, it has been heard by the Leader of the House. Indeed, the rural taskforce report looks more widely and more at the medium and longer term. Nothing that I have said today precludes consideration of what might be the right steps to take in the medium and longer term. The House and the Government will return to those issues over time.

Tony Cunningham: I welcome the report and the money that is being provided. Will the Secretary of State ensure that local people are brought into discussions on the implementation of the report? We want to make sure that the new money is spent as efficiently as possible because the people of Cumbria have truly suffered over the past nine months.

Margaret Beckett: I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs advises me that one of the key recommendations in the rural taskforce report as he sees it concerns teamwork, and clearly that involves local people. It is right to give careful consideration to the best, most effective use of the money. It is not for me to define Lord Haskins' terms for him, but I suspect that is what he meant when he talked about businesses that deserve money.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Lady accept that Lord Haskins is not the most popular man with farmers? He is not a particularly successful farmer and his company certainly is not friendly to the farming industry. Does it come well from a man such as Lord Haskins to hector livestock farmers who work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year? Does she further accept that the subsidies mentioned by Members during Question Time today go to the consumer, not the farmer? Unless farmers are there, the great land that we represent and which people take for granted will not be maintained. Farmers must produce from their land to maintain it for the benefit of the country.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will have been in the Chamber and heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) indicating that we all recognise not only the direct contribution that agriculture and farming make to the economy, but their contribution to the rural landscape, which is a key issue for tourism.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's contention that Lord Haskins is not popular in the countryside, I think that a succession of Agriculture Ministers would like to know how that is to be achieved.

Paul Flynn: The present animal markets are wasteful, inefficient, cruel to animals and accelerate the spread of animal diseases. During this crisis some farmers have sold their animals via video links, and Lord Haskins rightly says that the best way of conducting such sales is via the internet, which not only avoids suffering for animals, as they do not have to travel so far, but is far cheaper. Most of all, however, such a system would avoid the spread of disease, as animals do not come into contact with each other. Is not that recommendation, like the rest of the report, far-sighted? Lord Haskins rightly says that aquaculture, bio-farming and fuel farming are more prosperous and employ more people than traditional agriculture. They could also create an industry that has a far better future, without subsidies.

Margaret Beckett: People may or may not like what Lord Haskins has to say, but it is generally recognised that he is always a thoughtful and stimulating contributor to debate. My hon. Friend has drawn on some of the ideas that are in the public domain and being discussed. They are also very much ideas that we hope that the policy commission will consider and take into account when it makes its own recommendations.

Michael Jack: I recognise the very special impact that foot and mouth had on Cumbria, but other parts of the country suffered as well. People in those areas will look carefully at the conclusions of Lord Haskins' report and note the additional resources going to Cumbria. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to apply those lessons, and further resources, to other parts of the country?

Margaret Beckett: I should make it plain that it is not the intention that all that money will go to Cumbria. Clearly, however, the flavour of what Lord Haskins says is that many of the problems have been more severe there. Of course the Government recognise that the problems are more widespread.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with 134 cases in North Yorkshire, many of which have been in its two national parks, the impact on our sub-regional rural economy—particularly in my constituency in the Esk valley—was much the same as the impact in Cumbria. Will she confirm that North Yorkshire will share in substantial support to deal with that impact? Will the national park authorities, with their expertise, be used to tackle the problems of overstocking, especially in the sheep sector, that face many of my constituents?

Margaret Beckett: We are listening to the views and input of the various authorities on the future direction of policy. We shall also examine the distribution of the money. I am sure that not everyone will be satisfied, and that everyone will think that there should be more for their area, but I hope that people will recognise that it is a contribution.
	I should also like to share with the House a piece of information of which I have just been reminded. Lord Haskins was in fact recommended as the person to conduct the study by the National Farmers Union in Cumbria.

Archy Kirkwood: Those of us who have not had access to the papers rather assumed that the £24 million that the right hon. Lady has announced was specifically targeted on Cumbria. If that is not so, will she make it clear? At the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly raised the essential issue of the quantum of compensation. Have we heard her last word on that subject? Can we tempt her to keep open the possibility of increasing the sum if demands increase in other parts of the United Kingdom? Specifically, what new money will be made available in south-east and south-west Scotland as a result of her announcement today?

Margaret Beckett: I accept that it is not easy for hon. Members to follow the precise nuances of announcements. As I said, however, the money is indeed for Cumbria and for other areas; the hon. Gentleman is right about that. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the lion's share of the money will go to Cumbria, for all the reasons that hon. Members understand and have identified. I also accept that there will be continuing concerns in other areas, and that the Government will come under continuing pressure to see whether it is possible, in our difficult circumstances, to do more.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May we please have the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 22 October—Remaining stages of the Homelessness Bill.
	Tuesday 23 October—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. Until about 10 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Conduct of Ministers in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions" on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 24 October—Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill.
	Thursday 25 October—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day 1st part]. There will be a debate on a motion. Subject to be announced. Motion on the Social Security (Jobcentre plus Interviews) Regulations 2001.
	Motion to take note of European Document No. 14174/00 relating to the European Food Authority.
	Friday 26 October—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 29 October—Second Reading of the Adoption Bill.
	Tuesday 29 October—Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
	Wednesday 31 October—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 1 November—I intend to keep that date free at this stage; it may be appropriate for a further debate on international terrorism.
	Friday 2 November—Private Members' Bills.
	I know that Members will welcome early notice of recess dates. It may therefore be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House rise for the Christmas recess at the end of business on Wednesday 19 December, or Thursday 20 December, until Tuesday 8 January.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks—and not only that; knowing how keen his colleagues always are to get away from this place as much as possible, I suspect that they, in particular, will be grateful for the announcement of the Christmas recess.
	I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement that he wants to make provision on Thursday 1 November for a possible further debate on terrorism. On Monday 15 October, he said:
	"we will have repeated debates on the issue of terrorism . . . Whenever appropriate, we will return to it"—-[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]
	I am sure that everyone in the House will welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Government have already given proper time for the subject to be debated, and I hope that the Leader of the House will find it possible to give us as much reasonable notice as possible that it is the Government's firm intention to have that debate on 1 November. We want to avoid any last-minute decisions or scrambles for debates, especially on such an important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want the maximum possible notice of such a debate.
	With regard to next Tuesday's debate, I hope that the Leader of the House will be gratified that we took his advice. In the same column of Hansard it is recorded that he said that if I wished to return to the issue of Ministers, the civil service and special advisers, the Government would be delighted to debate it robustly with us. I followed his advice. Effectively, he asked us for a debate, and we have decided to give it to him. I hope that he will enjoy it—and I hope that his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will enjoy it equally; that remains to be seen.
	Finally, may I press the right hon. Gentleman on a point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who on Monday asked what had happened to the debate on drugs. That has disappeared, and this Friday we now have a debate on cleaner fuels. The right hon. Gentleman gave a lot of explanations about how busy the Home Office was and how difficult it would be for Home Office Ministers to find time, and so on. He then said:
	"I hope to see the debate reinstated at an appropriate time when the Home Office can appropriately find priority for it."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]
	I will not say that that was waffle; that would be unfair, but I hope that the Leader of House can give a more positive indication on whether we can return to the important subject of drugs, which I dare say some in the House, even some of his hon. Friends, think is marginally more important than cleaner fuel.

Robin Cook: I welcome the clear indication from the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Back Benchers that they will be happy to be here at Christmas. The recess that I announced is clearly subject to the progress of business, but I take note of the fact that Conservative Members are willing to be here at Christmas should that be required.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the day that we have set aside for a debate on terrorism. I will, of course, confirm that date at next Thursday's business questions. That will give us seven days' warning, and I am sure that that will be satisfactory for the House. Should we change our plans, I am sure that he will be the first to know.
	I think that I speak for all Labour Members when I say that I am grateful for the fact that the party that thought up the privatisation of the railways and devised the structure of Railtrack now proposes to have a full-day's debate about the disastrous consequences for Railtrack and the travelling public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was faced with a choice: to pour more taxpayers' money down the black hole of an insolvent company, or to create a not-for-profit company in which money would go first to the travelling public rather than to shareholders. We chose to put passengers first. The Conservative party would obviously choose to put shareholders first, but I have not the slightest doubt what the travelling public would vote for.
	I explained to the House on Monday that the sole reason for deferring the debate on drugs was that the Home Office is, at present, introducing three new Bills in response to the events of 11 September. The first will be an emergency anti-terrorism Bill, and I hope that all Members of reason would agree that the Home Office should be able to give priority to that issue at this time. However, I fully accept the case for a debate on drugs; that is why we found time for it in the first place. We shall return to it whenever we can.
	On Monday, I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I now congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is sitting in a suitably modest position, on joining the team of the shadow Leader of the House. I hope that, for his own sake, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will find the experience more congenial than his predecessor did, who quit after only 30 days in the post.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Minister for Industry and Energy will make a statement about his predecessor's decision on an equal pay claim for all the canteen workers in the coalfields? Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 2,500 of those workers have not qualified for the money? Will he draw that fact to the attention of the Chancellor of Exchequer and explain to him that we need extra money for all the canteen workers who were left out of the agreement and who must be paid? In my area, those who belonged to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers were paid, while those at Bolsover colliery who stayed loyal to the National Union of Mineworkers during the pit strike were left off the list. That state of affairs has been repeated across all the coalfields and in many constituencies represented by Labour Members. We want a statement or, better still, payment pretty sharp.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend states his case with his characteristic robustness. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It is long overdue that the events of that period were put behind us. Everyone should be treated on an equal and fair basis.

Paul Tyler: May I reinforce the plea that my colleagues have just made for a debate on the rural crisis? Many Members on both sides of the House think that such a debate is long overdue.
	Will the Leader of the House examine the allocation of time for questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? In the Question Time that we have just completed, it took us more than half an hour to reach a question on farming and agriculture and, indeed, no fishing questions were reached at all. [Hon. Members: "One was."] I apologise to the House; one fishing question was reached at the very end.
	Previously there was an arrangement by which a large Department—the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—allocated some time to environmental questions and some time to transport questions. May we put that procedure in place again? Will the Leader of the House and the House authorities consider that possibility so that agriculture and rural affairs are not kicked into touch, as they were today?
	The Leader of the House will recall—indeed, he may still have the bruises—his experience when the House decided that appointments to Select Committees should be more transparent, should be seen to be more transparent and should be more open to influence by Members rather than the so-called usual channels. Does he expect to be able to make an announcement on that, as a result of recommendations from the Modernisation Committee, within the two-week period that he announced today or very shortly? He will be aware that there are vacancies on Select Committees and, he may wish to make a statement about how he wishes to approach the task of filling them.

Robin Cook: I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the pressure for a debate on the countryside. I hope that we will be able to find time for it at an appropriate moment.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about questions to DEFRA, and I am alive to the fact that I am addressing a Chamber that is mostly composed of Members who were here for DEFRA questions, and with whom his point might resonate. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but there is no time available with which to widen the envelope; whether or not the envelope can be reshuffled is a matter on which I must seek the advice of my colleagues in the Department.
	I am pleased to report to the House that the Modernisation Committee had a good first discussion on appointments to Select Committees yesterday morning. I hope that we will be able to make good progress in reaching an agreement on an alternative method of bringing nominations before the House. If so, we may be able to bring a report to the House in November. In the meantime, I am conscious of the need to fill the vacancies that are arising, which is one of the reasons for my desire to make progress as quickly as possible.

Geraldine Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the wholesale redundancies, outsourcing and sell-offs currently being planned by Consignia, which could jeopardise its ability to meet its universal service obligations, destroy the morale of employees and plunge this country's postal services into a terrible mess. In view of that, may we have an early debate on the future of the Post Office?

Robin Cook: I am very much aware of the position to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, and I fully sympathise with the concerns arising from the announcement. My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement is only the start of a process of consultation and discussion, and I am sure that the House will have opportunities to ventilate the concerns of individual Members as that proceeds. These are, of course, matters for the company, not the Government, and I would not wish to suggest that Ministers will interfere in the way in which the company addresses the important task of ensuring that the Post Office remains in profit.

Michael Fallon: Will the Leader of the House consider the case for a debate on Lord Haskins' other report, published yesterday, the annual report of the better regulation taskforce? Does he accept Lord Haskins's conclusion that the present system of regulation is "excessively centralised"
	and
	"inherently autocratic, inflexible and remote"?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have expressed concern about the speed that is required in deregulation, which is why, after all, we passed the reform Act in the previous Session. I am pleased to say that since we did so, no fewer than 50 different areas have come within the scope of the Act and are being acted on as we speak. We will continue to make all due progress.

Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the gas explosion in my constituency last December, which killed two constituents, Alvin and Shirley Sykes, as they slept. The explosion was subject to an immediate investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, but 10 months later we are still waiting for the report to be published, and there is no evidence that publication is imminent. Will my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to the people of Batley, not least the Sykes family, who need to put that dreadful experience behind them, by arranging an immediate and urgent statement to the House about the full circumstances of the explosion and an explanation of why we are being denied the report?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is important to his constituency, and particularly to the family of the constituents whom he named. He makes his point with great dignity and force. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive and encourage it to release the report as quickly as possible.

George Young: The Government have made it clear that over the next few weeks the House will deal with a substantial volume of additional legislation on terrorism, much of which will be taken on the Floor. Does he agree that if the House is to perform its scrutiny role adequately, this necessarily means that some of the other items in what was already an ambitious programme will have to be dropped?

Robin Cook: I do not anticipate a problem with timetabling up to the next recess, which I have announced. As for the future, we will review the matter when we get there. Let us be clear: there has been a change, not only in our security environment, but in international affairs. Both the House and the Government would be subject to immense criticism if we were to say that we do not have the flexibility to respond, to introduce and scrutinise legislation and to pass it with the expedition required for emergency legislation. I look forward to the co-operation of all quarters of the House in achieving that objective.

David Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the looming crisis in the airline industry, brought about as a direct result of actions on 11 September? He will be aware that the American Government and other European Governments are giving strong support to their national airlines. It is a fiercely competitive industry and global market. The debate will also allow the Government to address the central problems that face the industry—the difficulty of insurance, the increased costs for extra security at airports and the provision of compensation for when the planes were grounded.

Andrew MacKinlay: And also about the absurdity of terminal 5, which should be stopped.

Robin Cook: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), although I fear that that is not in order.
	The Government have responded to the crisis in the aviation industry and underwritten provisions, especially in relation to insurance to the end of the month. We are in consultation with the aviation industry to consider what further support may be appropriate and consistent with our European obligations, which also apply to our partners. I note that the relevant Department will be up for questions next week and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and others may want to ventilate that issue then.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know from his former incarnation that problems arise if countries do things in different ways. Will it be possible before the next debate on terrorism for the Foreign Secretary to discover how far those who have joined in the coalition are working to defeat international terrorism? Belgium is not handing over information to the Americans and someone in the Republic of Ireland keeps his own army council, with illegally held weapons, against the constitution.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he and his hon. Friends might want to reiterate in the full-day debate that I have announced for two weeks hence. One reason why we held the Justice and Home Affairs Council immediately after 11 September and are anxious to introduce emergency legislation to implement our decisions is to ensure that all European Union member states work together with everyone else to ensure that we crack down on terrorism and co-operate with each other to bring to justice those who are guilty of terrorism.

Fiona Mactaggart: More than 100 Labour Members and some Opposition Members have demonstrated their unease about the Wakeham proposals by signing early-day motion 226:
	[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
	In view of that, will my right hon. Friend agree to consult further before he introduces legislation based on those proposals, which do not include a substantial democratic element for any elected second Chamber?

Robin Cook: I have noted the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers and see that she tabled it. I am happy to say that there will be a consultation document before legislation is introduced. We gave that commitment in the Queen's Speech and it is how we will proceed.

Angela Browning: The Leader of the House said that there has been an obvious change in the domestic security environment. May we have a statement next week on civil defence? There seem to be some mixed messages from Ministers, including the Prime Minister. When asked specific questions in television interviews, they respond that they do not want to create alarm, which is understandable, and we received some information in the margins of Health questions earlier this week, but the approach is in stark contrast to the attitude to public information in the United States. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on that issue? We are receiving questions in our mailbag and I have some questions that I should like to ask. The House deserves a statement and an opportunity to question Ministers without revealing too much that would undermine security.

Robin Cook: There will be an opportunity to question Ministers at the Department of Health. In fairness to the Government, we should recall that we began on Monday with a statement from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which dwelt on the internal security situation in Britain.
	The hon. Lady puts her finger on a dilemma that we must try to get right. We are aware of no specific threat to the UK, but at the same time we must recognise that in the present environment some people may wish to execute an attack on the UK if they have the opportunity and means to do so. Although we may be aware of no specific threat, we must be constantly alert and vigorous in safeguarding our people, and take all possible measures to do so. I am sure that we will debate the balance of those considerations as we proceed with emergency legislation.

David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the future of the United Kingdom hospice movement, which is under severe financial pressure? Sue Ryder Care expects to close four of its hospices throughout the country, including one at Staunton Harold hall in my constituency, about which a 20,000-signature petition was presented to No. 10 Downing street just last week. Is not the hospice movement, with the day, respite and terminal illness care that it offers and the dignity that it gives so many of our citizens in their final days, of sufficient importance for finance to be more heavily sourced from the national health service and not dependent on the vicissitudes of voluntary contributions?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Having previously held the health portfolio in opposition, I fully understand and greatly value the work of the hospice movement, which can provide particularly sensitive care at a very difficult time for both patients and relatives, who immensely appreciate its services. This Government certainly want the hospice movement to prosper, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health.

Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the conduct of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, particularly relating to the fishing industry? In the Shetland part of my constituency, the fishing industry accounts for 20 to 25 per cent. of our economy. My constituents would consider a system that allows for less than two minutes' questioning of Ministers in two weeks next to useless. I therefore ask whether time will be found for a statement or a proper debate on the crisis of stock levels in the North sea and the need, highlighted in a paper produced today by the World Wildlife Fund, for money to be provided by the Treasury for short to medium-term aid for the fishing industry and the white fish fleet in particular.

Robin Cook: I note that the hon. Gentleman has seconded the suggestion made from the Liberal Democrat Benches by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and I fully understand and am aware of the importance of the fishing industry to his constituency. I am delighted that this occasion has given me the opportunity to put that on the record in the way in which Question Time did not.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of demerger plans concerning mmo 2 , which is part of BT. I should register an interest as an ex-BT employee of 30 years, a small shareholder in the company and a member of Connect, the management and professionals union. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that, if carried, the proposals could damage not only BT but the UK's communications infrastructure. Is he aware that the trade unions representing BT's employees are firmly against any demerger on the grounds not only of possible job losses but of national interest? Will he arrange a debate in which we can discuss what might happen if the demerger goes ahead?

Robin Cook: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I am aware of the issue and I fully understand the anxiety to which it has given rise. The matter is essentially for BT as a company, but I hope that, in taking it forward, it will fully consult and listen to its employees and consider carefully whether the division of debt in the demerger is fair to both parts.

Chris Grayling: The Leader of the House may be aware that in early September the Strategic Rail Authority presented to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions an analysis of Central Railway's proposal to build a freight line from the channel tunnel to the north-west. As the Leader of the House may be aware, the proposal has caused considerable anxiety across many parts of south-east England, so I should be grateful if he would invite the Secretary of State to attend the House at the earliest possible date to make a statement on the proposals and their viability.

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs no further encouragement from me to appear in the House next week—he will be involved in Question Time and a debate next Tuesday, and I am sure that that will furnish the hon. Gentleman with adequate opportunity to air his concerns.

Colin Challen: Since 11 September, all hon. Members have welcomed the opportunities that we have had to discuss, in a very sombre and respectful way, the consequences of international terrorism, and we welcome the further opportunities to do so that have been announced, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing debate outside the House about the long-term consequences of the events of 11 September? We may be dismayed that such action has to be taken now, but beyond the fight in Afghanistan, there is a war against poverty and so on in the wider world. We may also be dismayed by a recent report, which we may have all received, from the Jubilee Plus campaign about the effect of poverty in the heavily indebted poor countries. That also needs to be debated, and perhaps a whole day should be set aside to debate that wider context.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the events of 11 September will have long-lived and wide repercussions, and I share with him the hope that, as a consequence, there will be a greater international consensus on bearing down on world poverty, which is, of course, one of the breeding grounds of the fanaticism that can produce terrorism. This Government have a very good record on taking the initiative in the G8 and elsewhere on relieving the debt of the poorest countries. We shall continue to provide that leadership, and I hope that we can now build a bigger alliance to lift the burden of debt from those countries that sometimes find that they pay more in interest on debt than they spend on their schools and hospitals.

John Redwood: Will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions can tell the House, either in the debate next week or in an early statement, how much public money will be made available to the new Railtrack, when decisions will be made about investment projects that have been put on ice by Railtrack's going into administration and when we will know the details of the successor company? In my constituency, we were well advanced with plans for a new station, but we now have no idea where Railtrack is coming from, who is running it, how much money it has and whether it can get on with modernising the railways. We will need answers from the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the time will not be wasted next week.

Robin Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's observations and consider what weight he should attach to them in his speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also favour us with a speech on Tuesday and explain how, while sitting in the Cabinet that privatised the railway industry, he helped to devise the system of railway administration. The system was thought up by that Cabinet and is part of the Railways Act 1993, so perhaps he could share with us the answers that Conservative Members had in mind in 1993.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to hold an urgent debate on encouraging the recruitment and retention of general practitioners? Has he had a chance to study the two surveys published yesterday? Is he aware of the growing shortage of GPs across the country, especially in east Kent? Yesterday, the prospect arose of one large practice in my constituency shedding 500 patients from its roll. That is driving us into a dangerous position, so will he seriously consider holding a debate on those important matters?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point about the situation in his constituency, and I understand why he is concerned. On the broader, national picture, I have to tell him that there are now more GPs than ever before and that the survey to which he refers discovered that the clear majority of those GPs believe that health care to their patients has improved under this Government.

Sydney Chapman: If not next week, then at an early date, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on a matter that is assuming some urgency—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the new European security and defence project? Given the need for the ESDP closely to ally its work with NATO, does he agree that it would be far better if the scrutiny at European level were conducted by a reconstituted Assembly of the Western European Union rather than by the European Parliament or the European Union, because some members of the EU are not members of NATO and some members of NATO are not members of the EU?

Robin Cook: I would suggest that, in the light of the events of 11 September, we should try to make every possible progress on European security to make sure, for example, that we can guarantee stability in our own continent, especially in south-east Europe and the Balkans, so that we never again see in Europe the emergence of the kind of pressures that gave rise to the attack on the World Trade Centre. Of course, it is important that European security and defence policy is democratically accountable, but I strongly suggest—the Government have maintained this position since the start of the process—that democratic accountability should be to the national Parliaments, including this one.

Neil Gerrard: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government published their consultation paper on a national strategy for sexual health, including HIV, in July? Having waited two years for that paper, it was disappointing that it was published in the recess, which meant that there was no possibility of a statement or debate. A lot of people are interested in the issues raised by the paper. Will he see if time can be found for a debate, if not immediately, then before the consultation period ends?

Robin Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question and know of his own interest through the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. I am aware of the concern about the time taken to produce the report; indeed, it was raised with me in business questions before the recess. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is indulgent of the fact that the report was published, albeit in the recess. It is important that we do not propose that all Government work be suspended during the recess, and it is vital that the Government are held to account for any major statement. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate; I cannot give any promises, but I shall certainly take it on board, along with the many other requests that I receive.

Andrew MacKay: Ahead of next Tuesday's debate, if we are going to restore confidence in public and political life, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions comes to the Dispatch Box and announces that he has at last sacked his special adviser, which is what the overwhelming majority of people in the country expect? Also, because of the delay in sacking, the Secretary of State should now say that he is considering his own position.

Robin Cook: There is absolutely nothing new left to say about the case of Jo Moore and the right hon. Gentleman has not found anything. The issue is not whether or not Jo Moore made a mistake; she herself said that she made a terrible error of judgment. The issue is whether someone's career and livelihood should be ended because of a single mistake. That may be how Conservative Members treat their staff, but it is certainly not how they behaved when they were Ministers. Had they resigned after making one mistake, they would not have lasted 18 days, never mind 18 years.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, 12 months on from the devastating floods of last autumn, it is appropriate to have a debate to examine their impact and consider where we are now as a result and what we have been able to achieve? For instance, 300 homes in my constituency were devastated at Stockbridge. If we had a debate, one of the many things that I would like to raise is the fact that the Environment Agency will not start work to improve flood defences on the River Aire at Stockbridge until next summer. Meanwhile, many of my constituents are extremely worried every time that there is heavy rain. In addition, as a result of the laggardly behaviour of one or two insurance firms, several of my constituents have still not been able to move back into their homes 12 months on.

Robin Cook: I am fully aware of the seriousness of the issue, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, and know that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are following the matter closely. As for a debate, I have now accumulated requests for a full week of debates, and I must warn the House that I cannot please everybody.

Paul Goodman: Could the Leader of the House provide the House with an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to legislate against religious hatred so that Opposition Members and, perhaps, Government Members can inquire how they are going to do so without a definition of religion in the Bill?

Dennis Skinner: With Mr. Bean's stand-in.

Robin Cook: I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret my hon. Friend's comment.
	The Bill will be published, we hope, in the middle of November, when the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) will be able to see its full terms. However, an awful meal is being made of issues of definition. Personally, I see no problem whatever with understanding the difference between a joke about a religion and inciting religious hatred and violence. Indeed, we ourselves tackled those questions in the past. I remember when people said that legislation against incitement to race hatred was impossible because it could not be adequately defined. We managed that; the legislation was passed and plays a useful role. I see no reason why we should not do the same with religious hatred.

John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that on Monday the Home Secretary announced that he would bring forward measures to increase security at airports, and yet, since then, there has been an exposé in the media showing that companies such as Securicor have been allowing staff with no security clearance to work in high-risk areas. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to bring those powers forward urgently to ensure that companies that exploit loopholes in the existing regulations should be prevented from doing so immediately, or, failing that, should not be allowed to operate at the airport itself?

Robin Cook: I saw the reports and made inquiries. There is a genuine dilemma here. The events of 11 September have required heightened security, not just at airports but at many other sites in the UK. It is impossible to provide that additional security without an increase in staff, and it is not possible necessarily to complete the screening of all members of staff before they commence work. The present arrangements make that permissible, provided that the screening proceeds as quickly as possible. The choice facing some of the installations is whether to have any security at all or security with those who may not have been fully screened. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend: we must make all haste and that is why we seek to introduce an emergency Bill with, we hope, expedited procedures.

Pete Wishart: Would the Leader of the House be agreeable to a full debate on the international humanitarian aid effort in Afghanistan, and, if so, could that debate be preceded by a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development so that she can inform the House of her recent visits?

Robin Cook: As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend is currently in Pakistan pursuing that very issue. The Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet have repeatedly stressed that the humanitarian effort is receiving the same priority and the same resources necessary for the job as the military effort. We will have an opportunity to debate the matter in a fortnight's time and we shall consider nearer the time who is most appropriate to speak for the Government.

Bill O'Brien: It is an extremely long time since we debated the work of the Child Support Agency, changes to which will be made next year. The CSA is powerful: it overrides medical evidence and will not allow appeals against its decisions. We should once again be considering the work of the CSA, which impacts on many people's lives. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on the CSA?

Robin Cook: I will happily draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As for a debate, I can only invite my hon. Friend to join the queue, in which there are already five in front of him today.

Michael Jack: Reports in The Times today say that the so-called secret plans to split Railtrack plc into financial and operating arms have been described as unworkable by potential investors. In view of that and the fact that many thousands of ordinary people who are shareholders in the company are still totally in the dark about their position, will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier view about the use of the Opposition day next Tuesday? That might properly be occupied by a consideration of ministerial conduct and the role of special advisers and not give a sharp focus on Railtrack. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement about commitment to the railways is to become reality, we need to probe the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions thoroughly and carefully in the light of those reports. Can we have a special debate on the subject?

Robin Cook: It is not for me to devise the Opposition motion, nor do I imagine it would be welcome were I to do so. [Interruption.] I am grateful for that confirmation of my view on the matter. It is open to all Members of the House within the rules of order to take advantage of that debate to explore the issues that they regard as most germane. For many of my colleagues, one of those issues will undoubtedly be how Railtrack, a company on the brink of bankruptcy, nevertheless in the course of the past 12 months has paid hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders, which could have been there for the safety of the travelling public.

Gordon Prentice: We heard earlier about the calamitous consequences of 11 September for the airline industry. My question is about aerospace. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce, which is a major employer in my constituency, is expected to announce between 3,000 and 4,000 job cuts? Does he agree that now is not the time for a high-tech company to make panic cuts? Will he invite the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House tomorrow and make an urgent statement about the unfolding crisis in the airline and aerospace industries?

Robin Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is following these matters with great care and great energy. I fully understand the importance of the impending announcement to the constituents of my hon. Friend and I also understand how important it is that, because of a short-term emergency, we do not disperse skilled teams that work together. I hope that we can all work together so that in the long term there will be healthy airline and aerospace industries in the United Kingdom.

Nigel Dodds: May I support the call for a debate on the airline and aerospace industries in the crisis resulting from the attacks on 11 September? In Northern Ireland, we know that Shorts in particular proposes to lay off thousands of workers as a result of the crisis. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 261.
	[That this House deplores the fact that British Airways have chosen to use the 11th September terrorist attacks as justification for withdrawing from the Belfast/London Heathrow route; condemns the refusal by British Airways to release slots at Heathrow Airport which could be used by other airlines for this route; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide support to ensure that this level of service can be maintained given the dire consequences of this decision on the economy of Northern Ireland.]
	The decision by British Airways to use the terrorist attacks of 11 September as justification for withdrawing from the Belfast International-London Heathrow route has caused great dismay and concern in Northern Ireland, and has removed Belfast and Northern Ireland as a region from the British Airways timetable. Can consideration therefore be given to an early debate on these matters?

Robin Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on behalf of his constituents who are employed at Shorts. In the long run, we must face the fact that the only way we can recover both the viability of the airline industry and the order book of the aerospace industry is by getting the public back travelling by air. That is why it is so important that we address our minds to what we can do to improve aviation security still further, to provide that confidence to the travelling public, and that is why it is important that the House deals urgently and sympathetically with the Bill that we have introduced, to ensure that we carry it through expeditiously.

Mark Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when considering alternative methods of choosing Select Committee members, priority should be given to two criteria? First, any system should be independent of Government, and secondly, it should be transparent and open. Does he also agree that unless all the names of hon. Members who are applying for membership of Select Committees are published, neither the House nor the public can be confident that the most appropriate hon. Members have been selected?

Robin Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the criterion that we must meet is that the body which puts names before the House is independent of party influence and transparent in its accountability. That is what the Modernisation Committee will seek to achieve. I am not sure to what extent it would be practical to publish the names of all those applying for membership of Select Committees, or whether such a system applies in the case of all the parties in the House. However, I can share with my hon. Friend our commitment that we will meet his standards of independence and transparency.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a DEFRA Minister to come to the House at an early date to make a statement about the serious delays in the issuing of movement licences under the new animal movement licensing scheme? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the need for farmers to move livestock before the winter. It is therefore important that the House knows what measures DEFRA intends to put in place to ensure that the system runs much more smoothly, in order to allow those much needed movements to take place.

Robin Cook: My colleagues from DEFRA left the Chamber less than an hour ago and I am not sure how willing they would be to come back straight away. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the importance of the autumn movements. I have already discussed it with her, but shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to her attention.

Harry Barnes: May we have a debate, or be guaranteed an early statement, on the serious situation in Northern Ireland? There are new possibilities in connection with decommissioning, given the general position on terrorism, and there is the problem of the resignation by Ulster Unionists from the Executive. Discussion of those matters should not simply be tacked on to general debates about the wider terrorist situation because the issues are important in their own right and hon. Members should have a chance to debate them.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is assiduous in raising this issue, and I imagine that he will have opportunities to ventilate his concerns in the future. I share his hope that the current international climate and the additional impetus that has been given to finding a resolution to areas of conflict that breed terrorism may bear fruit in the case of Northern Ireland as well. That is certainly what the Government are working for.

Michael Fabricant: Could we have a statement on the guidelines given to special advisers? I am thinking in particular of the concern reported in the press today and previously about civil servants who have been instructed by special advisers to perform political acts. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm a report on the BBC this morning that only Jonathan Powell and the Prime Minister's official spokesman have been authorised to give any instructions at any time to civil servants?

Robin Cook: I can happily confirm to the House that there is no provision for special advisers, or indeed anybody else, to instruct civil servants "to perform political acts". There are clear codes for both special advisers and civil servants, and both professions stick within those codes.

David Kidney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a slight delay in the general availability of the Auld report since its stated publication date, but that it should be widely available from today? Given that the report proposes root-and-branch reforms to our criminal court system, the Government have rightly announced a period of public consultation until the end of next January. Can my right hon. Friend find time during the consultation period for this Chamber to debate those proposals?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Robin Cook: I see that my hon. Friend's point has resonance in other parts of the House. The Auld report is an important, fundamental review of the court system and offers us a substantial improvement to our criminal justice system. It should be dealt with, at all stages, with the importance that it deserves.

Hywel Williams: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the continuing dispute at Friction Dynamex in my constituency the workers have been out for the past five or six months and their only reward so far has been dismissal? May we have a statement from the DTI on the efforts that it has made to resolve that long-running dispute?

Robin Cook: I am not familiar with the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall draw it to the attention of my DTI colleague and invite him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House has already heard several pleas for a debate on the airline and aviation industry. Given that the board of Rolls-Royce is presently meeting and intends to make a statement after the stock market has closed this evening about the future prospects of the company; given the events of 11 September; and given the need to retain high-quality technical skills in Hucknall, the east midlands and across the country, may we have an early opportunity to discuss the future of that important sector?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct in that a number of hon. Members have raised that theme in the past hour, and my colleagues and I will obviously need to reflect upon it. As I said earlier, I share those concerns. We must ensure that we do not lose long-term skills because of short-term pressures.

Anne McIntosh: May I add my voice to those calling for a full debate in Government time on the recovery of rural businesses? I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that farming businesses are by far the most numerous such businesses. I should like the debate to cover two aspects. The first is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the confusion and contradictory advice given by DEFRA about the issuing of livestock licences in the run-up to winter and the distress that that causes to the livestock. The second is the fact that 117 premises were affected by foot and mouth in North Yorkshire but so far only five contracts have been signed to cleanse them, so restocking cannot begin this side of Christmas.

Robin Cook: The hon. Lady has placed on record the extent of the problem in her constituency. As I said, I am not unsympathetic to the case for a debate on the countryside, but I hope that such a debate would be broad and enable us to deal with the rural economy, other aspects of public service in the countryside and the way forward, and not only the crisis of the past few months.

Jon Owen Jones: May I associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House about the postponement of the debate on drug policy that had been scheduled for this Friday? Will my right hon. Friend find time to read the British crime survey, which was published last month? He will find that not only has our drugs tsar come and gone without making a jot of difference, but our Government have not got a snowball's chance in hell of meeting their targets on reduction of crime. Clearly, the current policy is not working and we need to revise it. May we have an urgent debate?

Robin Cook: I rather anticipated that my hon. Friend would raise that subject and I commend him for the vigour with which he repeatedly does so. He would not expect me to assent to every proposition that he advances, but, as I said, we did have a commitment to a debate on drugs, it remains a commitment and, at an appropriate time, we will try to reschedule the deferred debate that was due this Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McWalter.

Tony McWalter: For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I feared that you were about to call time.
	As we are on the edge of the most dramatic improvement in real resources for the health service that has ever been seen, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said at the Labour party conference that some managements in the health service are plainly incompetent, will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to explain what he will do about the problem so that the huge increase in resources is not frittered away? Furthermore, will he treat my request with some urgency? In Hemel Hempstead hospital, massive closures in provision are about to be made by an incompetent manager, so I have a particular interest in ensuring that the matter is dealt with rather quickly.

Robin Cook: I think that we have just heard a headline in the Hemel Hempstead newspapers. I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed earlier this week in his speech on public services the importance of bringing all those services up to national standards. Indeed, he outlined how we intend to go about that task in the health service.
	I thank my hon. Friend for enabling us to conclude this session of business questions on a note of consensus by congratulating the Government on the largest building programme ever in the history of the NHS, doubling the increase in investment in the NHS and providing an additional 3,000 nurses since the last general election was declared.

Points of Order

Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the use of anthrax against the elected representatives of the United States constitutes an attack on the heart of democracy. Do you agree that this House, which is at the centre of our democracy and is widely respected here, in the United States and abroad, should send a message through you to your opposite number in the United States to offer our support at this difficult time? I remind you that it is only 60 years since this House had to be temporarily closed. Afterwards, democracy not only returned but went from strength to strength around the world. I suspect that a suitably worded message of support from you would be very well received in the United States at this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I shall certainly send such a message. It may be helpful for the House to know that, after the terrible events of 11 September, I wrote to Speaker Hastert and Mayor Giuliani. I explained the solidarity that Members of this House feel with their American colleagues and the close bond between this House and democratic institutions in the United States. I have noted that Ambassador Farish has been present in the House to hear our debates. I have invited him to Speaker's House, where he will have an opportunity to meet hon. Members from all parts of the House.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and some clarification. Earlier this afternoon the mechanism was used of a written question being extended beyond Question Time to enable us to have a statement from a Minister. My colleagues and I very much welcome that despite the confusion over the lack of information. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for using this mechanism on a number of occasions recently because it enables the House to get a statement from a Minister very rapidly. However, there are two major problems on which I seek your guidance, if not now, then on some future occasion.
	First, unlike when a normal statement is made, Members on the two Opposition Front Benches do not get prior notice of the contents of this kind of statement and that caused some confusion today. Secondly, and more formidably, at the moment it appears that the mechanism can be triggered only by a Government Back Bencher and a planted question. Clearly, Opposition Members should also have that opportunity. Will you reflect on that and see whether we can find some way in which this mechanism can be used more widely?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and come back to the House on the matter.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You often advise hon. Members and Ministers to give rapid or at least brief answers. Today we only got as far as Question 10, and, without mentioning any names, you may be aware that a particular Minister gave excessively long answers. I wonder whether you could write a gentle note or, wherever you meet Ministers from time to time, have a gentle word with particular Ministers. I realise that this is becoming a rather long and lengthy point of order; nevertheless long, lengthy answers, although they may be helpful, prevent Back Benchers from asking questions.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to get through the Order Paper, but to get further down the Order Paper I need the co-operation of the House. I would not single out Ministers who give lengthy replies as some Back Benchers ask very lengthy questions. In my opinion, the short, sharp question often gets a short, sharp reply, but I am happy to put it on record that I am very keen to get down the Order Paper.

BILL PRESENTED

Proceeds of Crime Bill

Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell and Mr. Bob Ainsworth presented a Bill to establish the Assets Recovery Agency and make provision about the appointment of its Director and his functions (including Revenue functions), to provide for confiscation orders in relation to persons who benefit from criminal conduct and for restraint orders to prohibit dealing with property, to allow the recovery of property which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct, to make provision about money laundering, to make provision about investigations relating to benefit from criminal conduct or to property which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct or to money laundering, to make provision to give effect to overseas requests and orders made where property is found or believed to be obtained through criminal conduct, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Communities (Finance) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the new own resources decision which amends the arrangements for financing the Community budget. These financing decisions were agreed at the Berlin European Council in March 1999.
	The decisions made at that European Council represent an important step forwards for the European Community and for the United Kingdom. The Council made several important reforms, preparing the EU for the challenges of enlargement, and it was a negotiating triumph for the UK, securing no increase in the own resources ceiling, maintaining the UK abatement and bringing EU spending under control.
	The new own resources decision that we are considering is little changed from the 1994 own resources decision, and any changes made to the decision are financially neutral for the United Kingdom. Our net contribution to the EU budget will not change as a direct result of what we are considering today.
	It is important that all the issues of concern to hon. Members on this short but significant Bill are properly scrutinised and the further time allowed for Third Reading will enable us to do so.
	Some interesting points were raised and addressed on Second Reading and in Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked several questions about windfall gains and requested additional information and clarification on various detailed points. I wrote to him on 16 July and have recently written to him again on the points that he raised in Committee. Copies of both letters were deposited in the Library of the House but perhaps I could reiterate some of the points that I made in my most recent letter.
	First, I should like to clarify the question of whether the cumulative value of the windfall gains forgone might have been greater than the value of the abatement received. I can assure the House that the value of windfalls forgone has been only a small fraction of the value of the abatement. That will continue to be the case.
	The average level of windfall gains over the period 1989 to 2001 has been £107 million per annum, whereas the average level of the abatement received over the same period has been £2.2 billion per annum. It is therefore clear that the Government were right to insist on retaining the abatement at Berlin.
	It was also right for the United Kingdom to agree to the windfall adjustments, just as earlier Administrations had. We sought a fair agreement at Berlin, and that is what we achieved. I hope that my reassurances have allayed the hon. Gentleman's fears.

Edward Davey: I thank the Economic Secretary for her letter of 10 October, which clarified an issue that was of serious concern to me. I also thank her, on behalf of the House, for asking her officials to spend some of their summer recess making the necessary calculations. I assure her that the figures that she has given today and in her letter answer my question in a substantive way.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was an enlightening experience for all involved.
	Another point raised during our earlier debates concerned the Berlin reforms of the common agricultural policy. The Berlin summit saw the most radical reform of the CAP since its creation. There were significant cuts in the prices of cereals, beef and milk, which brought cereal prices close to world levels for the first time. As a result of those reforms, consumers in the United Kingdom will be about £70 a year better off. Although we will continue to push for further reform, the Agenda 2000 reforms constitute a significant victory for the UK. Berlin also introduced the CAP second pillar, which focuses on rural development and the environment. That was a significant step in the move from market-distorting production- based subsidies.
	The Bill ratifies part of the Berlin agreement which secured no increase in UK contributions and safeguarded the abatement. That was a good outcome for the UK, and I commend the Bill.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to joust for the first time—I hope that it will not be the last—with the Economic Secretary.
	This is an important measure. Although, as was said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill is short, its implications are substantial. It is therefore necessary and desirable for us to engage in not a leisurely but a proper and comprehensive debate on Third Reading.
	That is also true when we put the debate, and the proposed Act, in the context of the size of the European Union budget. When we talk about what this country contributes to the European Union, it seems extraordinarily difficult to arrive at an agreed figure. Estimates vary greatly, and it is important to distinguish between the gross contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the EU budget and the net contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—who, sadly, is not present, but who contributed to our proceedings with distinction earlier—has calculated that this country sends approximately £1.2 million every hour. From that, the Economic Secretary will readily deduce that the sum sent each day is some £29 million, and that therefore more than £200 million per week goes from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union.
	I stress the words "from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union" because Governments do not, of course, have any money. There is no question of the personal largesse of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) going to the European Union; we are talking about hard-pressed British taxpayers, and the net contribution appears to be more than £4 billion a year.
	It is worth noting how the European Union budget is spent. There has, for example, been a marked change in the last decade or so in the proportion of EU funds allocated to structural assistance. I think that the figure in 1988 was around a sixth of the EU budget, whereas it is now nearer a third.
	The Economic Secretary, who is never knowingly understated in trumpeting the Government's alleged achievements, was bold on Second Reading and in Committee. Regrettably, today she has already repeated a phrase that she used at an earlier stage. She talked about how the Government accomplished a negotiating triumph. Allowing for the almost inevitable and instinctive tendency to indulge in spin over substance, that was a bit rich and I hope that she does not repeat the claim.
	Quite properly for consideration of this important matter, we have a packed House and hon. Members will be aware of the four bases of own resources: agricultural and sugar levies, customs duties, VAT-based contributions and gross national product-based contributions. The Economic Secretary made an entirely factual point about the shift from traditional own resources, as greater emphasis is now placed on GNP-based contributions. That is a simple statement of fact. However, her claim that the outcome of the Berlin European Council and the decisions subsequently taken in September 2000 constitute a negotiating triumph is more controversial.
	I shall argue my own case, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, but it is legitimate to pray in aid, if I can attract the Economic Secretary's attention from the alternative delights of talking to the Paymaster General, the verdict of a Foreign Affairs Committee report. The Economic Secretary will be intimately familiar with "European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up", which was published on 10 April. It is not the product of Opposition thinking, but at paragraph 18 it states:
	"The reforms agreed at Berlin may have paved the way for enlargement but further progress will be required to make enlargement a success."

Ruth Kelly: indicated assent

John Bercow: I am grateful for the Economic Secretary's sedentary assent to that proposition. She thinks that it makes sense. Therefore, she will immediately share my concern that the issue has not been raised since Berlin, despite no fewer than four opportunities to do so, and that CAP reform has not featured on the agenda. Four countries have held the EU presidency in the intervening period, but none chose to highlight the subject. If she agrees with the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats that further reform is needed, it is not unreasonable to ask when she thinks that it might feature on the presidency agenda.

Edward Davey: I agree that the Bill, like the summit that debated CAP reform, does not go far enough and the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Liberal Democrats want further, much greater CAP reform, but how far did the Conservative Government go on CAP reform during 18 years in office? Their many failures in negotiations with the EU have left us with today's appalling CAP inheritance.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who can always be relied on to prove himself a steadfast supporter of the Labour Government when they are on the rack. If he continues in that vein, the entitlement to Short money that the Liberal Democrats enjoy on account of their status as part of the Opposition will quickly be called into question. However, I shall happily answer his point.
	The hon. Gentleman thinks that we are playing a game of table tennis and that my natural response will be to say what a splendid job the Major Government did on the matter, but I am about to disappoint and perhaps even surprise him. We did something on CAP reform, but nothing like enough. Progress has been modest, but the difference is that I am not claiming dramatic, wholesale reform during 18 years of Conservative government. The Economic Secretary, on the basis of a fairly modest achievement, of which more anon, made a far bigger claim. Although the hon. Gentleman likes to be a helpful contributor, I hope that he will not do the Government's work for them, especially when they are doing their best to advance a rather poor case.
	I try to be fair-minded about these matters, but I know that Labour Members may not necessarily take it from me that the outcome of the European Council was modest rather than distinguished. I hope, however, that the Economic Secretary is interested in and inclined to show her respect for the verdict of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). It pains me that he is not here today. It is in order in his absence to pay sincere and fulsome tribute to him for his contribution to our earlier debates. He speaks with some authority on agriculture, and, on Second Reading, in relation to the CAP, he said:
	"it is certainly possible to overstate what was achieved."
	He went on helpfully to point out:
	"Some modest and welcome steps were taken, but modest is certainly the word. The gentle progress towards free-market prices was incomplete. Most commodities traded within the CAP area are substantially more expensive than those in world markets . . . The agreement will not be a rational basis for defending agricultural policy in the forthcoming World Trade Organisation round."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 188.]
	I will not dilate further on the subject because I do not want unduly to embarrass the hon. Gentleman when he reads my remarks later. Suffice it to say, he said that he was shocked that there had been no progress on the liberalisation of the sugar regime or on the need to reform what he described as the "ludicrous" milk quota system.
	In the circumstances, it seems that the hon. Gentleman's verdict is more closely related to the facts than the Economic Secretary's claim for the Government's achievements. Put another way, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was being fair when he said that what the Government secured was not outstanding, but
	"arguably not an unreasonable deal."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 222.]
	Can the Economic Secretary do something about the prevailing tendency in Government for spin to triumph over substance, optimism over reality and fiction over fact? She will recall that on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminded the House of the commitment made in the Labour manifesto, which boldly asserted:
	"our contributions are falling to similar levels as France and Italy."
	Yet, the net contributions show no sign of falling. I refer the hon. Lady to the 1999 Court of Auditors annual report, which showed that France was contributing annually £766 million net to Community coffers, Italy £1.153 billion and the United Kingdom £3.482 billion. When she responded to my hon. Friend on that point she said that she stood by the claim that our contributions were falling to levels comparable with those of France and Italy on the assumption of the admission of six new members by 2006. It is a trifle cheeky for her to stand by the Labour manifesto, which made a direct and explicit claim about what is happening to UK contributions, when what the authors of the manifesto meant was that if certain events transpired and if the projected outcome of those events was as it is currently expected to be, there would be a comparable level of contribution. The expression ifs and buts, apples and nuts readily springs to mind.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) may be satisfied with the answers that he has had on windfall gains, in which he takes a special, detailed and intelligent interest, but I am not so readily reassured. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary, with an air of some impatience because the subject had been regularly raised, said that she wanted to set
	"straight once and for all"—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol.371, c. 229.]
	the position in respect of windfall gains relinquished or forgone.
	In answer to my colleagues, the Economic Secretary said that the estimated loss to this country as a result of forgoing the windfall effect was approximately 220 million euros, which, if my arithmetic serves me correctly, roughly equates to £150 million. The difficulty with that answer was not that it was untrue but that, as with so much of what the Government lob in our direction, it was only half true. What she did not say, but, I believe, has recently confirmed in correspondence, was that the figure of 220 million euros was not a one-off figure, one-off loss or one-off disadvantage to the United Kingdom but a recurring sum that would arise every year. If I am mistaken and she can put another complexion on the matter, I shall be very happy to hear her do so.
	I am, however, privileged to have sight of the Economic Secretary's letter, dated 10 October, to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. She talks, in that context, about how average annual windfall gains would represent
	"less than 5 per cent. of the average abatement."
	Those averages can of course be ghoulish things, often disguising all sorts of variations that could redound to our disadvantage.
	Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for confirming in writing, although she did not repeat the point in her speech today, that on her best estimate she expects that the total level of windfalls to be forgone after enlargement is a little higher—not of the order of 5 per cent. of the average abatement, but rather nearer to 7 per cent. I do not say that that is a point of dramatic significance, but it should not be dismissed. It is important to know when we are talking about a one-off figure of 220 million euros and when we are talking about a figure that will recur for a number of years to come.
	I follow with the greatest interest what the Economic Secretary says in these debates, just as I always follow what the Paymaster General says—although she is displaying a particular lack of interest in following what I am saying today. However, that does not in any way undermine or diminish the significance of the issues that we are raising.

Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman put his arguments more succinctly, rather than taking twice as long to say half as much, my attention would probably be sharper.

John Bercow: I do not know why the Paymaster General is so churlish. When I think that I need communications advice from the hon. Lady, for whom I have a high regard, I will be happy to consult her. However, I do not think that that is necessary. There are good arguments to be made, and there are several examples that elucidate them. I have a little way to go, and many key points to emphasise. I am sorry that she is so frosty about it. I am not usually as disobliging to her as she is insisting on being to me.
	I should like to draw attention to the failure of the CAP and the inadequacy of its reform. If that pains the hon. Lady, I can only say to her that she has taken the offer. She is in the Government and she has to defend the position. If she is not happy about it and finds it uncongenial, she knows the options that are open to her.
	On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary said:
	"we achieved the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since its inception".—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 228.]
	In that respect, she was echoing what the Chief Secretary had said earlier in the debate—[Interruption.]
	The Paymaster General would expect me to have done a little research into these matters. I have also had the chance to see what relevant commentators said at the time in response to the Government's achievement. It is not a question of what the Paymaster General or the Economic Secretary think, but of what other observers think. What did the Select Committee on Agriculture conclude? I can quote it with exemplary succinctness for the benefit of the Paymaster General and others. In five words, it said:
	"This is a bad deal."
	The Opposition have been much more generous and nothing like so ferocious in our criticism. We thought that there was an argument to be made by the Government. However, in the view of the Agriculture Committee, it was a bad deal. In case the Paymaster General thinks that I am inventing that, she can of course refer to the relevant report, of 29 June 1999, at paragraph 6. I feel sure that when, at some point, she leaves the Chamber—I am not encouraging her to do so—it will be because she is going to hotfoot it to the Library to obtain a copy of the report and refer to paragraph 6. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—the Whip who must be obeyed—reminds me that he was the distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee at the time of the report, so he can confirm that what I said is true.
	Let us hear what the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union said about Agenda 2000. The task was to
	"facilitate enlargement of the Union; to develop a policy consistent with international trading agreements; better to protect the environment; and to promote rural development."
	The Committee's judgment was that those objectives were not achieved.
	What did the National Farmers Union chairman, Ben Gill, have to say on the matter? In the foreword to the 1999 NFU publication "Farming Economy", he said that the reforms of the CAP made under the present Government had left UK agriculture in an "inherently unstable state".
	The Countryside Alliance has said:
	"the recent Agenda 2000 round of CAP reform was a failure. Agenda 2000 failed to address the new pressures of EU expansion, and the Select Committee on Agriculture foresees another round of CAP talks within two years."
	English Nature said that the outcome was
	"very disappointing for the environment".
	The Food and Drink Federation was
	"extremely frustrated and concerned by the conclusions of the weakened package of reforms adopted in Berlin".
	The Tenant Farmers Association concluded:
	"the agreed package stems more from matters of financial and political expediency rather than a desire to place agriculture in Europe on a firm long term platform".
	Given the importance of reform of the CAP, which I think is agreed on both sides of the House, the fact that independent commentators are less than exultant—I put it no more harshly than that—about the outcome of the hon. Ladies' negotiating ploys should at least give the Economic Secretary and her exuberant colleague, the Paymaster General, pause for thought.
	Having dealt briefly, but with relish, with the Economic Secretary's claims about reform of the common agricultural policy, I now move on, with due enthusiasm, to stealth taxes. I do not want the Paymaster General to feel left out; I shall come to her, and she will not be disappointed. I do not want her to feel that she is excluded from my remarks today, because she will feature in choice fashion. However, I hope that she will exercise the patience for which she is renowned on both sides of the House, because first I want, properly and politely, to address my remarks to the Economic Secretary.
	Before I go any further I shall say something to the Economic Secretary that I probably should have said at the outset; I have certainly said it to her outside the House. I have always regarded her as possessing a rare combination of intellectual ferocity and personal charm, so I feel flattered to be opposing her across the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General, in what I take to be a slightly more jocular fashion than that in which her earlier observations were made, says, "That's the end of a good career."
	On Second Reading, on 3 July, considerable attention was paid to article 9, page 14, of the Council decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources. The Economic Secretary will be well aware that that article states:
	"The Commission shall undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals, in the light of all relevant factors, including the effects of enlargement on the financing of the budget, the possibility of modifying the structure of the own resources by creating new autonomous"—
	I emphasise that word—
	"own resources and the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom as well as the granting to Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden of the reduction pursuant to Article 5(1)".
	On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—sadly, he is not in his place now, although he performed earlier—argued forcefully that the article was Brussels parlance for enabling the European Union to impose its own taxes directly on the British people.
	In the course of Second Reading my right hon. Friend challenged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to strike from the document those references to the creation of autonomous resources and to seek to amend the Bill accordingly. If the Chief Secretary had been prepared to do so, or if he had even replied to my right hon. Friend's request to him to intervene, we might have had some reassurance.
	As the Economic Secretary will confirm, the Chief Secretary is no more reticent than I am. He is a regular contributor in the House, and I have always thought that among Ministers he is the veritable Dr. Pangloss of new Labour. He always thinks that the best is in evidence, and that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Yet when he was challenged by my right hon. Friend to respond to that question, he chose not to do so.
	The Economic Secretary, who is a rather braver soul, was prepared to do so, and on Second Reading she quoted a passage from the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995, which was in fact article 10 of the Council decision of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities' own resources. She used the quotation to support her alleged refutation of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham had said.
	The article states:
	"the Commission shall submit, by the end of 1999, a report on the operation of the system, including a re-examination of the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom, established by this Decision."
	The Economic Secretary then said:
	"That position"—
	that is, the position in the Council decision of 31 October 1994—
	"did not lead to a new EU tax then, and it will not do so now."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 231.]
	I do not think that the argument is quite as compelling as she seems to think. She said that article 9 of the Council decision on the system of EC own resources of 29 September 2000 was broadly similar to that of October 1994, so there was no problem.
	We need to play the game—an important game—of spot the difference. The notable difference between the two articles is that that of 29 September 2000, as distinct from the one put forward six years before, refers to the creation of new autonomous resources. There is clearly a difference here. We might ask whether the word "autonomous" refers to member states' ability to raise own resources through their own autonomous powers or to the power of the European Union to raise money itself through its own direct and autonomous budgetary powers over and above, and separate from, the autonomous budgetary powers of sovereign states. "Which is it?" I might ask. I am sure that the answer is on the Economic Secretary's lips even as I pose the question.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will help to explain that point, because if she does not, she will be aware that we have been undertaking a little of our own private detective work to discover what we can. In that respect I am deeply indebted to one of the brightest minds helping the Opposition in this House—James Cartlidge, who has done superb work on this subject.
	At my request, James Cartlidge took it upon himself to contact the European Commission to try to get clarification on the subject, which the Minister had not offered. He spoke by telephone to a Mr. Jean-Pierre Bache, who has responsibility for the
	"Outlook for financing and budget forecasts of own resources in the Own Resources evaluation and financial programming section in Directorate B of the Budget Directorate General of the European Commission."
	If the Minister would find it helpful for me to supply phone numbers and website references, I should be happy to do so at a later date. I am always a helpful soul; if I can be obliging, I am more than willing.
	Mr. Bache was unhappy with the use of the word "autonomous", although that is the English translation given, because he felt that it did not adequately explain the intended meaning. He felt that the phrase "visible and accountable" would have been more appropriate. The reason, as Mr. Bache explained, is that the Commission's intention is to bring EU budgetary affairs closer to the people. Indeed, one might argue that what "autonomous" means in this case is just that—bring the EU budget closer to the people by reaching directly into their pockets. In other words, autonomous EU budgetary authority inevitably leads to Brussels levying its own taxes directly on the British people.
	If the Economic Secretary does not share that analysis, she at least owes it to the House to explain what is the purport of the very particular remarks contained in the document announcing the Council decision. As Mr. Bache further explained—it is his explanation and not necessarily ours—that is not the same as the EU taking on its own tax-raising powers. Rather he argued that the new autonomous own resources measures would manifest themselves—I like this and I hope that my hon. Friends do—in more indirect forms while nevertheless achieving greater direct revenue-raising powers for Brussels.
	The example that Mr. Bache used was one in which the EU might choose to specify certain percentages of excise duty or VAT as new own resources to be paid into the Brussels budget. The Economic Secretary might argue that we have nothing to fear from article 9 because similar such articles negotiated by Conservative Governments have not led to EU taxes, but we all know that this article will result in the EU having the opportunity to propose new ways in which autonomous resources can be raised.

Ruth Kelly: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has not had the benefit of the discussions at the Economic and Finance Council that I was privileged to be party to in July this year. In them, the very subject of a European tax was discussed and the Belgians, who placed it on the agenda, found no enthusiasm for it anywhere in Europe. The Chancellor forthrightly put the UK case that there will be no European tax.

John Bercow: I do not find that argument remotely persuasive, for reasons that I am happy to explain. I am afraid that all the Economic Secretary has done is—

Dawn Primarolo: Lengthened the hon. Gentleman's speech.

John Bercow: Yes, she has. In view of what I said about the Economic Secretary's intellectual ferocity, I had hoped that she would come up with something better than she has just volunteered to the House.
	We know that the Chancellor of Exchequer has said that he opposes tax harmonisation but we also know that, on the continent, it is commonplace, when tax harmonisation is writ large in the tabloid newspapers in this country, to employ a different lexicon. Instead, we are told that the EU would gradually like to advance the cause of tax co-ordination. We can then involve ourselves in a semantic debate on the difference between harmonisation and co-ordination.
	We know that taxes come in a variety of forms and through a series of disguises. The Economic Secretary has made her point about tax intentions and she will be aware that the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has called for a direct EU tax. He thinks that that tax should be levied on all citizens and he is backed by the Belgian Finance Minister and, importantly, by the European Union Commissioner for the Budget, Mrs. Michaele Schreyer. She suggested that the tax should be in the form of an imposition on savings, and Ministers will also be aware of the verdict of Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, who argued for an EU-wide tax on 14 June this year.
	It is no good the Chief Secretary simply saying that
	"any change to the tax regime in Europe is a matter for unanimity . . . we do not accept the need to introduce new taxes."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 143.]
	If that is so, will the Economic Secretary explain why the Government agreed without criticism to the insertion in the decision announced in September 2000 of the words that, at the very least, open up the possibility of autonomous revenue-raising powers for the EU?
	We know that a tax is not simply just something that is called a tax. If the Economic Secretary is in doubt about that, we can refer to what the EU has said about the use of alternative instruments to affect taxation measures. I refer to the Commission communication "Tax Policy in the European Union—Priorities for the Year Ahead", which said:
	"while it remains the Commission's view that a move to qualified majority voting at least for certain tax issues is indispensable, the legal basis will, for the present, remain unanimity."
	I note the use of the words "for the present". The communication adds:
	"Given the difficulties in reaching unanimous decisions on legislative proposals, which will be compounded by enlargement, the Community should also consider the use of alternative instruments."
	The EU is perfectly capable of producing a whole orchestra on this subject to fulfil the objective of increasing the number and scope of revenue-raising proposals.
	That point is so blindingly obvious given all our experience with partners in the EU that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it. I do not know whether the Paymaster General wishes to volunteer for that description, but a danger exists and—without wishing to overstate it—it would be very foolish to ignore it.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm two points? The first is that he is arguing that charges could be made on the British people without the British Government having the chance to veto them at Brussels. If so, will he provide rather more substantive legal back-up than he has done hitherto? Secondly, can he confirm that his argument of the past 10 minutes has nothing to do with the Bill?

John Bercow: I am very concerned to relate my remarks to the Bill. Although the hon. Gentleman is putting in a job application to replace you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be guided by your judgment rather than his.
	The hon. Gentleman challenges me to provide a legal basis and precedent to justify my point that what is being planned is effectively a denial of the veto. He will know perfectly well that instruments of the EU can be used for a variety of purposes. I refer, for example, to the introduction of the working time directive as an EU health and safety measure, when it manifestly is not that. It was introduced on that basis, because the EU knew perfectly well that it would be not be able to get it through otherwise. Introducing it under qualified majority voting provided an alternative route.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all sorts of measures have been justified in the name of single market legislation and the greater approximation to a level playing field in matters of trade and commerce than has existed hitherto. If he is so naive as to suppose that to raise revenue we need to have what is formally described as a tax, he greatly underestimates the wizardry and sophistication of his masters in the EU. I strongly suggest that he do something about that.
	On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham drew attention to several measures that have come in already to the disadvantage of the UK, violating entirely the hon. Gentleman's cardinal principle—he would have us believe that it is his cardinal principle—of a right of a national veto on taxation. The art levy has already done considerable damage to the UK art market, and it will have a further detrimental effect. There also is the serious risk of an energy tax.

Dawn Primarolo: To reveal all the facts, will the hon. Gentleman explain which Government agreed to the introduction of the art levy?

John Bercow: The Paymaster General is playing the party game, but I am very happy to deal with her point. I have always been opposed to droit de suite, and many Conservative Members have consistently opposed it. We regard it as detrimental, but her Government are enthusiastically pursuing it even though it was not the preference of the Conservative Government. She knows that, on that subject, she has not a leg on which to stand.
	I am conscious of what Mrs. Schreyer said on behalf of the European Commission in response to a question asked by my colleague, the Conservative finance spokesman in the European Parliament, Theresa Villiers. When, on 31 July, Mrs. Schreyer was asked about the autonomous resources that might be planned, she said:
	"An objective could be to replace the existing financing system of the European Union's budget with one or more European taxes".
	Although it is difficult to see how that matches up to what she previously said, she curiously adds:
	"without imposing an additional financial burden upon European citizens."
	If she is saying, "We are going to find a new tax, but we are going to compensate for it by a reduction in expenditure or tax-raising measures elsewhere", the expression "pigs before eyes" comes to mind. However, I would be happy to see whether she can provide an earnest of her good intentions.
	We know in any case that on taxation measures the Government's hands are not clean. My cup runneth over today, because the Paymaster General has done us the great courtesy of a visit. If the hon. Lady's record on these matters were as widely known as it should be, it would not commend itself to the electors of Bristol, South. We know, and she may be proud of the fact, that shortly after the 1997 election, a code on business taxation was established in the European Union. Shortly afterwards—I do not remember precisely when, but I feel certain that the date is imprinted on her mind—she was put in charge of an EU-wide working party on the investigation of methods to give effect to that code. Specifically, from March 1998 onwards, she was charged with the responsibility of identifying what was described as unfair tax competition.
	There is a genuine debate to be had about whether genuine tax competition can be unfair. There are those of us who believe very strongly in the desirability of tax competition, although I am not sure that the hon. Lady is among us. I have been disturbed by two phenomena of late. The first was the identification by the Paymaster General of 88 examples of tax reliefs, credits or benefits that helped the United Kingdom and which she was volunteering to give up within the European Union, to the manifest disadvantage of British trade and commerce. It struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs for her to countenance.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Lady is understandably sensitive on the point, so I give way.

Dawn Primarolo: I am just trying to help the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he does not inadvertently say something inaccurate to the House. There were not 88 British measures. This is not the subject of today's debate, so I will not engage him any further, but I should be happy to do so at another time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying rather wide of the matter before the House, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to it.

John Bercow: I am very happy to be guided by your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will focus my remarks accordingly. I will not argue the toss about whether or not there were 88 measures; we can always argue subsequently about exactly how many measures there were. That is a matter for legitimate debate.
	In the interests of having a proper debate about autonomous revenue-raising powers, which is directly relevant to the Bill, I strongly advise the Economic Secretary and Paymaster General to get hold of copies of an excellent document published by the Centre for Policy Studies, the author of which is the colleague to whom I referred a few moments ago, Theresa Villiers MEP. The document is entitled, "European Tax Harmonisation: The Impending Threat". It makes absolutely fascinating reading. I read it late last night and studied it very carefully, and I can tell the Paymaster General that it certainly is not a cure for insomnia. It is a thoroughly good document and it tells us the track record of this matter.
	The significance of what the Paymaster General said is that the work of the working party would "never be finalised". I presume that the hon. Lady will not deny that she said that on 10 October 2000 to the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee. The Government have trumpeted as an outstanding achievement what is really a very modest deal secured as a result of the Berlin summit. It is not a great accomplishment. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire, who is a legendarily independently minded representative in the House, put his finger on it when he said that it was modest.
	If the Economic Secretary would simply say that the Government think that they have reached a worthwhile, but modest, achievement, and that the Opposition should acknowledge the progress that has been made, I would take my hat off to her, but I confess that I am not holding my breath in anticipation that she will suddenly abandon the term "triumph", which she has twice used to describe the measure.
	The Government did not achieve very much. There is a widespread and understandable anxiety on the part of a great many of our fellow citizens that there could be in train new revenue-raising and decision-making powers of the European Union. If those new powers flow from the decision and the passage of the Bill, it will be to the eternal discredit of the Economic Secretary. She has indicated that that will not happen. Many of us fear that it will. Those concerns are genuine; they are frequently expressed, and they should as a matter of course be listened to respectfully and heeded in practice.
	What we need from the Government, throughout public policy but no more so than in European policy, is frankness and candour. Over the past four years we have had neither. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are determined to ensure that over the next four years we get a greater measure of both.

Edward Davey: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I welcome him to his new duties. I look forward to sparring with him and with the Economic Secretary and other Treasury Ministers in due course.
	Over more than half an hour, the hon. Gentleman seemed to make three substantive points. The first, which took 10 minutes, was that the word "triumph", which was used by the Economic Secretary on Second Reading to describe the Bill and the negotiations that preceded it, was wrong. The hon. Gentleman would describe the Bill as modest. I agree with him, as I said on Second Reading:
	"It is a modest measure that arises from the modest decisions taken at the Berlin summit. Indeed, its modesty explains why it is disappointing."
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the fact that the decisions taken at the summit, which led to the Bill, were disappointing in that CAP reform was not a greater element. He is right, and I made the same point on Second Reading:
	"We must be far bolder in reforming the CAP."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 157-160.]
	The Economic Secretary disagreed with me in that debate and defended the decisions taken at the summit. She feels that CAP reform had gone a long way, but I do not think that there has been substantial reform. We do not have a vision of how we can fundamentally reform the CAP. So far, all reform has been incremental, and the Bill is one more small step towards a vision that is, as yet, unshared and unclear. That is one of the big failures of the summit and of the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman's third major point was about tax harmonisation. I do not share his concerns. I agree that tax harmonisation would be wrong, but I disagree that it is at all likely. Indeed, he seemed unable to substantiate his allegation that the Government would be unable to veto any such proposal. Not only is he wrong, but the major point that he made does not relate to the Bill.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman and I may just have to agree to differ. I am sorry that he thinks that I do not have a justification for my point. I maintain that I do, both on the basis of historical precedent in relation to the identification of examples of unfair tax competition and in relation to the text of the decision. Can the hon. Gentleman, who obviously disagrees with my interpretation, tell me what he understands by the term "autonomous revenue-raising powers", which are newly to be sought?

Edward Davey: By focusing on that textual point, the hon. Gentleman misses the point, which is that a veto is retained by each member state. The Liberal Democrats support that veto, as do the Government and, I assume, Conservative Front Benchers. That means that the problems that he spent 10 minutes outlining do not exist.
	I am surprised that we are here, because a Programming Committee met on 18 July. I was present and so was the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Conservative Whip. We argued that this day's debate was not necessary, but the Government persisted in vehemently arguing that it was necessary. In the end, there was a vote in the Committee. In preparing for the debate, I thought that the Conservative spokesman would keep his or her comments short. Perhaps that was wishful thinking. [Interruption.] The Conservative Whip says that by the standards of the hon. Member for Buckingham he did deliver a short speech. Perhaps he is right. Let us warn right hon. and hon. Members who are not present of that.
	The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed in the Programming Committee that we did not need an extra day, primarily because all the issues had been debated on Second Reading and would be covered in Committee and on Report. We decided that we could move swiftly on. Indeed, the Conservatives did not vote against the Government. I listened to the speeches by the Conservative spokesman and thought that the Bill—as opposed to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham, which went beyond its remit—was relatively uncontroversial. Perhaps the Conservative Front Bench has changed its position with its change of leader.

John Bercow: I am taken aback by the hon. Gentleman. He is spending some minutes lamenting the length of the Third Reading debate on a critical matter that relates to a net UK contribution to the European Communities of about £4 billion a year. What is his problem? Is he so anxious to debate the ministerial salaries order that he wants to end this important debate, or is he missing a preprandial drink in Kingston and Surbiton?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are making points about how we have arrived at this stage. Perhaps we can now get on with Third Reading.

Edward Davey: I am more than delighted to do so.
	The Minister set out the general background to the debate on Second Reading and earlier. The nature of the debate is that the own resources decision has been reformed, and the Bill implements that change in UK law. I welcomed many of those reforms on Second Reading, as did Conservative Front Benchers, especially the switch from the value added tax aspect of own resources to gross national product, which is a much fairer system, the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of GNP on the EU budget and the proper discipline that has been placed on EU finance. The Government should be congratulated on gaining those substantive reforms, although they are relatively modest.
	On Second Reading, I said that the Bill's major problem is its modesty. We need far more radical solutions to reform the EU budget. The Bill does not even begin to nod in the direction of those radical reforms. EU finances have rightly been criticised for many years by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps we should also take a closer look at the way in which we manage our domestic budgets, which often leaves a lot to be desired.
	Recent reforms of EU finances include putting the 2001 budget under policy headings for the first time. Right hon. and hon. Members may think that that is a minor reform, but the fact that we have had to wait until 2001 to gain such a modest change goes to show what a state the EU budget is in. The Bill fails because there is so much more to do. Why are we not setting budgets based on outcomes, outputs and activity-based management at an EU level? That would be sensible. Why are we not rationalising the whole EU budget? That would result in cuts, which I am sure would delight the hon. Member for Buckingham.
	There are too many budget lines scattered around the EU budget, too many small proposals for expenditure and too many small pots of money—the EU slush funds. They are unnecessary and do not amount to a row of beans in terms of what they produce. We and our European representatives should be arguing to strike out such pork-barrel politics. We need to focus the EU on its core competencies, which will make the budget more transparent. We need to examine key areas of EU spending. CAP reform has been discussed, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
	We also need to consider the budget for external aid. Chris Patten brought that to light and proposed many interesting reforms of the way in which the EU should allocate substantial sums that have been earmarked for it, but that money is often wasted. It is not spent in the right way and it certainly does not meet the objectives of the initiators of the budget lines. We need to implement a major reform of the way in which we allocate such a serious amount of money.
	The Bill and the discussions that preceded it did nothing to tackle major reforms. Despite the rhetoric of Eurosceptics, there are not many officials in Brussels. The Commission does not have an army of civil servants. As the EU budget is not focused on its core competencies, officials run around trying to administer small pots of money that have no effect. Their time is wasted by dealing with detailed application forms and monitoring and auditing the money. If we focused the budget, we could get better value for money from civil servants in Brussels.

John Bercow: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the small size of the centrally employed EU bureaucracy, but I am sure that he will acknowledge the large number of British civil servants and civil servants in other member states whose principal responsibility is to give effect to EU decisions, so he should not develop his point too far. Is he arguing for a reorganisation of EU finance, with fewer small pots and more money put into the larger ones, or is he making the bold and ground-breaking assertion for a Liberal Democrat that the EU budget should be cut?

Edward Davey: I am arguing for rationalisation. If that leads to cuts and frees up resources, member states might take the political decision to remit the money to member states or use it for other purposes. I would not prejudge those decisions, but I object to money being wasted on a structure that is clearly inefficient. We should be arguing that, the Government should have argued that and we should be calling for greater reforms of the EU budget.
	I have another example. Much EU spending takes place in member states, but is administered by officials in Brussels—a ludicrous process. It has to be inefficient and cannot be as transparent as a system whereby money that is spent in, for example, the UK is administered by British civil servants answerable to British Ministers. The process needs significant reform and is one reason why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is modest.
	There was not a great deal of argument about the Bill's details when we considered them in Committee and on Report. After all my research, I found only one cause for concern, to which the Minister responded in her letter to me on 10 October. The reform of own resources means that the UK Government will give up windfall gains from budget reforms due to the expansion of Europe and so on to keep the abatement originally agreed by Baroness Thatcher at Fontainebleau.
	I asked the Minister whether the cumulative effect of giving up windfall gains—they are related not solely to the Bill and the decisions that preceded it, but to discussions undertaken by the previous Conservative Government—was larger than the benefit of the abatement. She was not able to answer that factual question in Committee or on Report. I pushed her on it because I wanted to persuade her to ask her officials to consider the question and do the number crunching, although she was hesitant to do that at first. I am delighted that she did so because the figure that she set out in her letter to me on 10 October, which is now in the Library, provides Members with the information necessary to allow the Bill its Third Reading.
	The calculation could have shown that the cumulative effect of the windfall gain was larger than the abatement. That would have been a major new piece of information on which Members could have decided whether to allow the Bill to proceed. As I and my colleagues voted to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am delighted that the calculation turned out as it did, and the abatement is indeed larger.
	I want to keep my remarks brief, as we do not need to discuss the matter in any more detail. The key substantive point that emerged under previous scrutiny has been answered by the Minister. Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham, I thought that the letter was clear and that it answered my points. I should stress that it was the Liberal Democrats who made those points at all stages and forced the Government to provide the information that was key to the Bill's scrutiny. If there is a Division, I and my colleagues will vote in favour of Third Reading. We hope that, when the Government engage in discussions on future reform of the EU budget, they will be rather more bold and seek rather more radical change.

Howard Flight: I would not try to copy the sophisticated rhetoric of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but I was delighted that the Opposition were able to include in this debate the droit de suite. I can comment only that when I last spoke on the subject, I made the great mistake of saying "seigneur" instead of "suite".
	This debate has been rather unsatisfactory; we know that we are going through the motions. It is about what was agreed at Berlin two years ago, and the nature of the Bill does not permit any sensible amendment. We are faced with a "take it or leave it" approval of the deal that was done.
	Our basic point is that the essence of the deal on changes to VAT and gross national product funding is reasonable. The VAT-based contribution is to be amended by reducing the maximum call-up rate to 0.75 per cent. in 2002-03 and to 0.5 per cent. thereafter, and member states' GNP-based contributions are to be increased.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) sought to claim huge credit for inducing the Minister rightly to make it clear that the cost of giving up our windfall gain would be cumulative. I think that most Members were aware of that. That of course means that we are not dealing with the one-off figure that was quoted. However, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that for the record. The major dishonesty of Berlin, however, was that it was supposed to be about enlargement. In a sense, it was the antithesis of that because the failure adequately to reform the common agricultural policy blocks enlargement.
	I believe that anyone who is European must want enlargement of the European Union. From visiting people in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, I know that they feel that they have been treated appallingly. The iron curtain has been down for 12 years and they have been told by the EU to do this, that and the other, but they are still left dangling on a string waiting for the prospect of becoming EU members. Some states have even reconsidered the desirability of becoming members. However, all those who want an open, liberal and flexible EU, rather than an inward-looking one, must want a widened membership.

Angus Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those opinions—I fully endorse them; Ithink that all Members would like the rapid enlargement of the EU as soon as possible—with his party's voting record last night? The Conservatives voted against the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which will effect EU enlargement.

Howard Flight: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is wasting the House's time; there are different issues involved. The treaty of Nice is about going a step too far in political unification, while enlargement is the very opposite of that. A Europe of very different economies and countries cannot be a rigid and inflexible EU, but Nice would take us down that path.

Roger Casale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer the question that I put to the shadow Foreign Secretary yesterday, to which he was unable to reply. Were ratification of the treaty of Nice to fail, when would be the earliest possible date that EU enlargement could occur?

Howard Flight: With respect, the question is nothing to do with the matter before us. I am simply trying to make the point that something that was supposed to be about enlargement occurring as early as possible was actually about postponing enlargement for an unlimited period. Until there is adequate reform of the CAP, enlargement is not possible. That is well realised by countries in Europe that want to join the EU.
	I turn to article 9, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham elucidated and—dare I say—entertained the House. It is important that the French equivalent of "autonomous" has crept in. The Minister argued on Second Reading that article 9 merely repeated what had gone before, that we should not take any notice of it, and so forth. The wording has been tightened marginally.
	There is of course no point in having article 9 unless it is meant to mean something. It reserves the right to consider pan-European taxation and, indeed, to reconsider the British abatement. What is the point of Mr. Bache and his army of staff considering the subject if no one has any intent of making progress towards it? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I pointed out on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out today, the fact that the issue is included in what we are being asked to approve should not be overlooked. The Bill puts down a marker with which we do not agree and with which I do not think people generally agree.
	There is no free lunch. The issue really was about Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden wanting to pay less. That meant that someone must pay more or, to the extent that it might be possible to reduce the total budget, our contributions—allegedly—will not rise. However, we will not enjoy any reduction in contributions either. That fails to address the central issue that France, which has an economy roughly comparable to ours, pays £760 million net, whereas the UK pays £3.5 billion. We all know why; it is because of the CAP. We also all know why the CAP has been so difficult to reform. Yet again, failure to reform the CAP has hindered the debate on fair contributions and the problems for a more outward- looking Europe, and nothing has been done about such failure.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the last time that the common agricultural policy was reformed was at the 1992 Edinburgh summit, where, under the Tory Government, agriculture spending was increased by 9 per cent?

Howard Flight: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes has already been answered—we do not claim that we succeeded in reforming the CAP. Although spending under the CAP has fluctuated, it continues to account for nearly half of the EU's total spending, and it is projected to rise from 44 to 46 per cent. in 2006—so if what he said about the last attempt was correct, the expenditure will increase yet again.
	In the debate held on 3 July, the Chief Secretary told the House that, under the current arrangements, if the EU gross national product reduced, the ceiling on EU expenditure would be automatically reduced, so EU expenditure would decrease. Although it is clear, alas, that the EU's GNP will reduce, is the Economic Secretary confident that it will be practical to reduce expenditure at the same time, as her colleague assured the House?
	In essence, the deal was done at Berlin in 1999; in no way do the Government's proposals represent a negotiating triumph. Indeed, I hate to think what might have happened if the Economic Secretary ever referred to having suffered a disaster. We got the minimum deal that was acceptable. The claim that retaining the abatement was a great achievement seems wholly bogus. The abatement was negotiated by previous Conservative Administrations, and it has saved some £20 billion. Indeed, it will save about £2 billion next year.
	As the House is well aware, we have a veto on that matter—unless a subtle wheeze is discovered to water it down. Our net position was not improved; nor was the unfairness in the net contributions made by different-sized economies corrected. As other hon. Members have said, no proper review of the EU budgetary process and what needs to be done to eliminate waste and excess was undertaken to ensure that money is spent as it should be. Yet the expectation is that EU administrative costs will rise from 5 to 6 per cent. in 2006, under the arrangements in hand.
	Before I finish, I should like to emphasise that it is not correct to claim that there was a triumph. In particular, it is wrong not to make it clear that the Berlin arrangements failed in their intended objective, which was to accelerate movement along the road by which enlargement could occur. On that score, we are unhappy with what was achieved, but, as we made clear on 3 July, the financial deal at the centre of the issue is minimally acceptable.

Roger Casale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. It is true that previous Conservative Administrations played a part in negotiating previous British abatements, but does he really think that, given the Conservative party's present stance on Europe, it could negotiate any abatement on the scale that we have achieved?

Howard Flight: The Government have merely continued with that which the Conservative Government negotiated, and a veto exists to retain that arrangement, so the Government have achieved nothing at all. What will happen when the Conservatives come to power at the next election will depend on what is going on in Europe, but I am confident that a general clear-sighted assessment of European affairs will enable us to negotiate whatever is right and proper.

Ruth Kelly: With the leave of the House, I should first like to say that, once again, we have had a good-natured debate. It is interesting to hear the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), speaking for the Opposition. I congratulate him on his appointment to the shadow Cabinet, and I thank him for his kind remarks. Having said that, I hope that my reputation will not take too long to recover with my colleagues.
	Perhaps I should be surprised that the hon. Gentleman has discussed a European issue at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since his elevation. In doing so, not only has he chosen to ignore the edicts of his party leader, who has asked his party to adopt a low profile on Europe, but he has gone even further than previous Conservative Front Benchers would have chosen to do, by gracing us with his presence here today. As has been said, he must realise that his own party previously voted against the programme motion for Third Reading to take place today.
	However, perhaps I should not be too surprised, after all; the hon. Gentleman's views on Europe are well known. Indeed, if he had not been recalled to Parliament recently, he would have shared a platform at a Conservative party conference fringe meeting with Norman Lamont and the Bruges Group chairman, who stood up to applause when the panel was told that the party should campaign for Britain's withdrawal from Europe.
	I certainly maintain that the Bill represents a triumph for Britain. Indeed, the outcome is far better than the two previous Conservative Governments ever achieved. In fact, when the last own-resources decision was considered in 1992, the agreement involved a 22 per cent. real increase in the financial perspective over seven years. In 1988, the increase was 17 per cent.

John Bercow: The temptation is irresistible. The hon. Lady seeks to cast aspersions on the Opposition's position. First, this is Government business, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would expect us vigorously to oppose it, which is what we are doing. Secondly, to avoid any doubt, my position on Europe, and that of Her Majesty's Opposition, is that we are in favour of free trade, not federalism; co-operation, not coercion; and a Europe of nation states, not a single European state.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for clarifying his views on Europe, although I note that he does not dispel my suggestion that he thinks we may have to withdraw from the EU. As he and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, our proposals do not represent an unreasonable deal and, as I said on Second Reading, that is high praise indeed from Opposition Members.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham has indeed done his research. He gave the various figures for the gross cost of joining the EU. The gross figure that he cited was, I think, £1.2 million an hour. However, the net cost per head is £56 a year, and I believe that that is money well spent. It gives the people of Britain a right to be part of the largest European single market, comprising 370 million people, which is estimated to increase output by 1.5 per cent., and other benefits and jobs depend on our membership of the EU and the single market.
	The hon. Gentleman dwelt at length on the CAP. Of course, we recognise that further reforms need to be made to the CAP. A mid-term review of CAP financing, involving the cereals and the dairy regimes, is due in 2002. We must use that opportunity for further CAP reform. I totally agree with him that more needs to be done, but Agenda 2000 represents the most radical reform of the CAP since its inception. In fact, if we had not managed to make alliances with Sweden, Denmark and Italy, any reform of the CAP would have been extremely unlikely. We are in the vanguard of those negotiations; the Government's ability to form alliances enables us to push the agenda forward.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady teased me, so she will not mind if I tease her. Does she endorse the verdict of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that the outcome of the Berlin Council was "modest"? Does she share his shock at the failure to achieve progress on free markets in sugar and milk quotas?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), whose interest and knowledge of such matters is recognised by Government and Opposition Members. He must agree that my hon. Friend did not question what I have told the House today—that the United Kingdom is in the vanguard of reform and we are pushing for further reform. Of course, we recognise that more is needed and we intend to pursue such action. I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman, who described the Berlin Council as modest, that in the 1980s spending on the CAP represented more than 60 per cent. of the EC budget; this year, it will be 45 per cent. I am sure that he agrees that that is a great step forward. He questioned the nature of our contributions, which have come down in line with those of France and Italy, and asked whether it is right to incorporate six new member states in our assessment. I suggest to the House that it would have been misleading for us not to incorporate the most likely participants in an enlarged EU.
	We have had an interesting debate, with both Opposition parties discussing the windfall gains that the UK has forgone in line with previous practice, which was agreed when the Conservatives were in government. As the hon. Member for Buckingham noted, I have written to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and placed a copy of that correspondence in the Library for Members to read and study. The figure for the windfall gain that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton quoted was an estimate from the European Commission itself. The amount of windfall gain to be forgone, he will realise, will vary from year to year as a result of the duties and levies collected, the effect of consumer expenditure on the VAT base, the level of the VAT base and other factors, but I will not bore the House by going through them. However, the amount is purely an estimate and not a definitive figure for the windfall gain from year to year.
	We had an interesting and entertaining discussion about the own resources decision and article 9. The matter was first raised in the House by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I was disappointed that he was not present to hear my response. Article 9 does not represent in any way a potting of precedent, which the Conservative Government agreed. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham well knows, and as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, that is not a critical aspect of a hidden regime in tax policy. We are absolutely determined to maintain our stance that there should be no new tax-raising powers for the EU. As the hon. Member for Buckingham will know, at ECOFIN in July we had the enthusiastic support of many other member states in that position. He will also know that there could be no new EU tax without the unanimous support of EU Finance Ministers.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is trying hard to dispel our concerns although, frankly, mine have not been assuaged. However, in the light of what she has just argued, will she tell the House the significance of the inclusion in the article of the word "autonomous"?

Ruth Kelly: I certainly listened with interest to the results of the telephone conversation that one of the hon. Gentleman's friends had with someone in France, I believe. I do not think that he would expect me to comment on a telephone conversation to which I was not privy, but the important principle is whether we have a veto on any new EU finance tax-raising powers. I put it clearly to the House, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done, and as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did on Second Reading, that we have no intention of consenting to a new EU tax. Any such tax will depend on the unanimous consent of all EU members.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made several well-informed and interesting comments. I certainly agree that we need to address the EU budget; rationalising it is a priority. We discussed that in Committee and, as he knows, we are giving a high priority to reform, with a focus on outputs and delivery, rather than inputs. I also thank him for his comments on windfall gains; I am sure that most people in the House will wish to do so.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made some interesting comments, some of which we have already addressed in Committee, so I shall not prolong our debate by going through all of them. However, he mentioned the financing of the UK's abatement, and I would like to reiterate that any changes to it that were agreed do not in any respect affect the position of the British taxpayer. The Berlin Council addressed the problem of other large net contributors to the community budget: Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. In future, they will pay less towards the UK abatement, but the cost of that will be met by the other 10 member states, not the UK, so the change should have no net effect whatsoever.
	In conclusion, the Bill demonstrates the huge benefits of Britain's constructive engagement with the EU. It shows that by taking a leading role in reform and by working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes that are good for the UK and the EU. The agreement will mean stronger controls on EU spending, the beginnings of a more effective agricultural policy and no increase in the own-resources ceiling. The Bill ratifies part of the Berlin agreement that secured no increase in contributions from the UK and safeguarded the abatement. That is a good outcome for the UK and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Ministerial Salaries

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
	That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
	The March report of the SSRB—the Review Body on Senior Salaries—on parliamentary pay and allowances was debated in both Houses on 5 July and its recommendation on Members' pay was agreed. Not discussed at that time by the House was the SSRB's recommendation No. 2 that Lords Ministers should receive an equivalent increase to that of Members of this House. The proposal was passed by the House of Lords on 23 July.
	The order gives effect to recommendation No. 2—that there should be an increase in Lords Ministers' pay of £4,000 in two instalments of £2,000. The effective date of the first instalment is 20 June 2001, the state opening of Parliament. The order provides for the second £2,000 instalment from 1 April 2002 payable in addition to the automatic uprating of Lords Ministers' salaries, which takes effect from the same day.
	The purpose of the increase is twofold: first, to ensure that ministerial pay remains broadly comparable to that of posts in the public and private sectors, and, secondly, to ensure that the cash differentials between Commons Ministers' salaries, including their parliamentary salary, and Lords Ministers' salaries do not widen. The SSRB thought it important that Lords Ministers' pay did not lose ground against that of their counterparts in this House. The SSRB's recommendation builds on its 1999 report which recognised that Lords Ministers' pay had failed to match the responsibilities of their work. I am sure that there will be a consensus in all parts of the House that Lords Ministers play an important part in government and in Parliament, which the order recognises.
	The order also gives effect to similar rises for the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords. In total, 26 peers will benefit from the order, so the total cost will be modest.

Eric Forth: I have not yet been too long in the position that I now occupy, but I am already alarmed at the extent to which I find myself in agreement with the Government and Ministers, and this is another such occasion. However, this occasion allows us briefly to reinforce the importance that certainly the Opposition give to the role played by the other place and its Ministers.
	I have never had any doubt in my mind, and I have even less doubt now, that the House of Lords is a vital part of our parliamentary process. It is an institution that gives important safeguards to our people, so it is important that we recognise the role played by Members of the House of Lords and, therefore, Ministers in the House of Lords. To that extent, I welcome the order today.
	There are questions that are not for today but which we would do well to consider as to whether or not or how far even the SSRB recommendations give effect to making ministerial pay broadly comparable to that in the private sector, as I think the Minister said. I have always been intrigued as to how it is that even a body as distinguished as the SSRB can set out to identify some sort of comparability between what Ministers of the Crown do and what is done in the private sector.
	I have always had some doubt about how far that comparability can be stretched, but let us be thankful for what the SSRB has given us. It is has given us the opportunity to make ministerial pay generally, and in this case ministerial pay in the House of Lords, at least somewhat more realistic, and for that much we should be grateful. It is for another occasion for us to return to whether ministerial pay either here or in the Lords is sufficient.
	Having said that, I have one question for the Minister for the sake of clarification. The explanatory note intriguingly states:
	"The amounts specified in this Order are the maximum salaries payable. The actual salaries may therefore be less."
	On what basis would the salaries be less and who would decide that they should be less? The Minister may say that the Government will decide—or more probably the Prime Minister, because he appears to decide most things—but what interests me is not so much what the Prime Minister decides for the salaries of his Ministers, but whether the Prime Minister would then decide the salaries of Opposition officeholders, as set out in schedule 2.
	I ask that for clarification because, in some circumstances, it could give rise to difficult or contentious tensions. I hope that I can be reassured that my suspicions are unfounded, but I should be grateful if the Minister could expand on that delphic sentence. Having said that, we are more than happy to support the order.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for bringing the order forward. It is deceptively short and bland in what it says and does. I do not pick any quarrel with the proposal for ministerial salary increases in the House of Lords and the bringing of them into line with those in the House of Commons. I would only pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in relation to comparability with the private sector, a point that the Minister raised and on which he might wish to elaborate.
	When one considers the private sector, particularly former parts of the public sector now in the private sector, and when comparability is prayed in aid for the enormous salaries paid, one finds that, unlike in the schedule, we are not talking about five-figure numbers nor even six-figure numbers but, in many case, seven-figure numbers. I sincerely hope that the Minister does not intend to come back with further steps towards comparability that take us anywhere near such exceptional, excessive figures. Some of us do not accept the argument that comparability with the private sector should be the starting and the finishing point.
	I want to say a little about the even less considered schedule 2, relating to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Lords, which involves a total expenditure of £117,000 and some pence. I think that I am quoting the Minister accurately when I say that he said that the measure affects only 26 Members of the House of Lords and so does not cost much. This provision concerns only two Members of the House of Lords, and £117,000, by the Minister's standards, may not be much—perhaps a couple of hours' pay on the new rates that might come in with comparability. It pales into insignificance compared with the £500,000 paid by the Government to Her Majesty's Opposition in this place. It is certainly a modest figure compared with the amounts being paid here. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says that it is worth every penny, but there might be several points of view on that.
	Schedule 2 relates specifically to the official Opposition's role in the House of Lords and I assume that the constitutional reason for the money being paid—not the realpolitik reason—is to improve the effective scrutiny of the Government in that place and to achieve better legislation; otherwise, it is money completely down the drain. That £117,000 would be well worth it if it secured effective scrutiny and better legislation.
	I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's comment with regard to those being maximum figures and asking about the possibility of lesser amounts being paid to those two Members of the House of Lords. He asked who decides what money they should have. My response to that is, "He should be so lucky." These are the only two Opposition Members in the House of Lords to receive Government support. The arithmetic and the reality of the House of Lords is that there are two Opposition parties.
	I look forward on a future occasion to speaking on and voting for an order that more accurately reflects the political reality and democratic facts in the House of Lords and here in relation to the financing of Opposition parties.

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their support of the order. I am sure that we can maintain this cross-party consensus between the two Front Benches. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not here now, but I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier in welcoming him to the shadow Front-Bench team.
	I am advised that the terminology that suggests that a lesser amount might be paid is because a Minister may decide not to draw the salary, or not to draw the full salary. There is no suggestion that the Government would award a salary increase to Ministers but deprive the Opposition spokespeople of either all or part of the salary increase. If the order is agreed today, it will apply across the board. [Interruption.] I hear cries of "Shame" behind me. I am losing votes rapidly, but no doubt the Opposition will be happy with that reassurance.
	On securing comparability with the private and the wider public sector—a point raised by the spokespeople of both Opposition parties—the task is immensely difficult, which is why the House decided to parcel it off to the SSRB in the first place. When we discuss the reports, we need to consider the basis on which the SSRB made its calculations. Over recent years, significant progress has been made in dealing with a situation that was unacceptable. People who were taking on major government responsibilities as Ministers were not having that recognised in the salaries made available to them.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made a bid for money for those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the House of Lords. Clearly, that is not covered in the order, but it is a contribution that could be made to the continuing debate on the future character of the upper Chamber.

Eric Forth: I hope that in any review of such a matter, the Minister and his colleagues will judge how far the Liberal party is a party of opposition or an adjunct of the Government. That would largely inform the extent to which it might be worth paying Liberal Members in this House or the other as pseudo-Ministers or an inadequate Opposition.

Stephen Twigg: I do not believe that there is any question of the Liberal Democrats joining the Government as Ministers in this place or the upper House. I will not be drawn into that discussion, or I may lose the limited support that I still have from Government Back Benchers.
	The measure is a sensible one, implementing a proposal from the SSRB. To complete my answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, it is important that the increase applies to the two Members from the Conservative Opposition in the other place, to allow effective scrutiny and debate. The proposal is modest, it will not cost a great deal, and I hope that we can agree it this afternoon.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

CHRISTOPHER ROCHESTER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the case of my late constituent, Mr. Christopher Rochester. Christopher was a young man of 24, born and raised in Chester-le-Street in my constituency. Like thousands of young people every year, he travelled to the island of Rhodes in June last year for a summer break.
	Christopher travelled to stay with his brother Keith, who had been working on the island. He was a bright, intelligent young man, educated at the Hermitage school and New college, Durham. He had all to live for. He travelled to Rhodes from Newcastle airport on 7 June last year, waved off by his mother. He telephoned her the following day to say that he had arrived safely, the weather was lovely and he was happy to be with his brother Keith. He told his mother that he loved her and promised to ring on Sunday 11 June.
	Christopher never made that telephone call. By then, sadly, he was lying dead in a Greek hospital mortuary. The call that his mother received was from his brother—a heart-breaking call, with the devastating and shattering news that Christopher was dead. Early that morning Christopher had been found at the foot of the balcony of the apartment in which he was staying in Falkari. He had fallen from the balcony on to the concrete patio below.
	What followed for Christopher was a slow, painful, lingering death in the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes, and more than a year of appallingly cruel and tortuous treatment of his mother and family in their attempts to get answers as to why Christopher was allowed to die.
	After being found lying bloodied and broken on the patio, Christopher had to wait 40 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. Still conscious and being comforted by his brother Keith and friends, he was, in his brother's words, "shuffled" on to a stretcher and placed in the ambulance. Despite Christopher's complaints of severe back pain, no attempt was made to immobilise him or protect his neck. When he arrived at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes town, he was received in the accident and emergency department and seen by a junior doctor. The doctor attended to Christopher's head wound and ordered x-rays to be taken of his back.
	Christopher was in constant agonising pain, pleading to be given water to quench his thirst. His brother responded to his pleading by running backwards and forwards, his hands cupped full of water from a tap at the end of the room, while two members of staff stood by, casually smoking.
	The x-rays were taken and a possible fracture to the coccyx was diagnosed. Christopher was admitted to an orthopaedic ward, still in severe pain, with a continuing deep thirst, and, by now, a large swelling on the lower part of his back. His brother Keith was told to go home. His friend David agreed to stay with Christopher. David sat next to his bed. Christopher was given an injection for his pain, but his thirst continued and again his pleas for water were ignored. It was left to his friend David to ferry cups of water from a water fountain in the corridor.
	Pitifully, Christopher kept repeating to David that he thought he was going to die. David tried to reassure him that everything would be all right. David drifted off to sleep, only to be woken abruptly half an hour later by a nurse in an agitated state asking him to leave the ward. In his heart, David knew that something was seriously wrong.
	The curtains around Christopher's bed were drawn. A female nurse emerged minutes later to tell him that Christopher was dead. David, grief-stricken by events, had the terrible task of telling Keith that his brother Christopher was dead. Keith then had the unimaginably difficult job of ringing his mother to tell her that her young son was no longer alive.
	I have briefly described events that would have been traumatic for any family to cope with, but what I am about to tell the House adds to them in the most cruel and inhumane way. No compassion was shown to Christopher's brother Keith. Having been told that his brother was dead, he had to identify the body. He was shown into the hospital mortuary by an attendant who spoke no English. The attendant removed three bodies from their cabinets until, on the fourth occasion, Keith was shown his brother's body—a traumatic experience for someone already suffering the shock of bereavement.
	Next, Keith was interviewed by the local police, and made to wait for two and a half hours in the kitchen of a police station, having had little or no sleep for the past 24 hours. The interview was aggressive and was conducted through an interpreter, a retired tour guide who spoke only broken English. The statement was written out in Greek and no attempt was made to translate it.
	A week later, Christopher's body was flown home, having been released by the local Greek undertaker only after his mother, Pam Cummings, had borrowed £2,500 from the bank to cover the costs of transportation. Christopher, like so many, had no travel insurance. The body was taken to the University hospital in Durham. There the pathologist undertook a post mortem and discovered that Christopher's left kidney was missing. It had been retained by the Greek hospital. Distressed by this news, Christopher's mother contacted my predecessor, Giles Radice, who, with the invaluable assistance of the British consulate in Rhodes, got the Greek authorities to send the kidney back to the UK via the consulate in Rhodes.
	When the kidney arrived at University hospital in Durham, for some unexplained reason Mrs. Cummings asked the local coroner to have it DNA tested. That was refused. Undaunted, she paid to have the kidney tested privately. To her horror, her suspicions were proved right: the kidney was not that of her son, Christopher. Now, more than a year on, Christopher's family still waits for answers, frustrated by the Greek authorities' refusal to respond to the most basic requests for information.
	In an editorial on 15 January this year, the Newcastle Journal newspaper summed up the main questions that remain unanswered: first, did Christopher receive the correct treatment for his injuries; secondly, why was his kidney removed, and where is it now; and, thirdly, what action has been taken against those involved? On the first point, there is clear evidence that Christopher did not receive the proper treatment that we would expect in a modern European country.
	Professor Redmond, who drew up a report for the local coroner in Durham, said:
	"The management of the patient in this case fell far short of the very basic principles and constituted what I regard as gross medical negligence".
	In his report, he criticised the Greek hospital authorities for ignoring the most basic of procedures. He said that, although the advance trauma life support procedure is used and recognised in Greece, it was not followed in this case and that, despite Christopher's being under the influence of alcohol, no attempt was made to conduct a thorough examination. Instead, it was used as an excuse for doing nothing. Christopher's thirst was clearly a sign that he was in shock and losing blood, but it was ignored. According to Professor Redmond,
	"This was negligent. The patient was clearly desperately thirsty. He was in shock. He was bleeding to death and being ignored."
	The negligence continued right up to the end. No attempt was made to resuscitate Christopher, even though, as Professor Redmond said,
	"had resuscitation been instituted, even at this very late stage, he might have survived."
	Clearly, the staff on duty that night at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes displayed the most appalling negligence. For me, the most telling point from Professor Redmond's report was his conclusion:
	"Had this patient been treated in this country then the likely outcome would have been that he would have survived".
	No plausible explanation has been given as to why Christopher's left kidney was removed and retained in Greece. It would have been a vital piece of evidence in determining the cause of death and its omission has clearly hampered the pathologist who carried out the examination of Christopher's body in the UK. Mystery still surrounds the identity of the kidney sent to the UK and the whereabouts of Christopher's kidney. The only response from the Greek authority is that the correct kidney was given to the British consulate in Rhodes, implying that somehow it must have mixed it up with the no doubt large number of kidneys kept at the consulate. What a ludicrous notion.
	On 25 and 26 July this year, an inquest was held in Durham into Christopher's death and the verdict given was accidental death contributed to by neglect. At the inquest, certain documents appeared for the first time. A report by the Papandreou hospital into the case names those responsible for the terrible treatment of Christopher. It says that Sergios Pavlidis, the trainee doctor on duty, failed to seek out the duty doctor or a specialist doctor to look at the patient and that Dr. George Karavolias, the emergency ward duty doctor, was in bed and left no instruction that he should be notified if an emergency was admitted. It also said that the two nurses on the orthopaedic ward failed to inform the duty doctor that Christopher had been admitted to the ward.
	The same individuals were named in a second report produced at the inquest, this time by the public prosecutor's office in Rhodes. It had the telling words on the front cover, "Homicide as a result of negligence".
	What has been the outcome? In short, we do not know. The family's attempts to get answers have been met with a wall of silence. I wrote to the Greek Ambassador on 3 September this year, but to date I have not even received an acknowledgement of my letter. Stephen Hughes, the Durham MEP, has made representations to the Greek health and justice ministers, but to date has had no replies.
	The case that I have outlined is truly appalling. Respect must be paid to Mrs. Pam Cummings, Christopher's mother, and her family for the way in which they have tried with dignity to get answers but have been thwarted by a lack of co-operation from the Greek authorities.
	According to the House Library, more than 2 million UK citizens visited Greece in 2000. Christopher Rochester was just one of those. Unlike others, he did not come back. Greece is not a third-world nation; it is a modern country and a member of the European Union, and we should expect decent health care if we fall ill while visiting. From the experience of Christopher Rochester, health care on Rhodes is clearly not adequate, and one would question whether it is safe for UK citizens to visit the island. The UK tourist trade to Greece in 1999 was worth £938 million. There should be an onus on both the Greek Government and UK tour operators to ensure that local medical services are of a higher standard than those on Rhodes.
	Mrs. Cummings, a proud lady, knows that nothing will bring her son back, but if by highlighting this case she can prevent another mother from going through the torment that she has experienced, some good may have come out of Christopher's death. Clearly, the family wants answers to the questions that I have raised this afternoon. Any representation that the Minister can make on behalf of the family would be greatly appreciated in trying to bring this unhappy story to a close and finally allowing Christopher to rest in peace.

Tom Watson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for allowing me time to contribute to this debate on an issue that is of great personal interest to me. I lost a close friend and employee on the island of Rhodes this August. Dominic McElroy was 26 years old and well known on the Labour Benches and within the Labour party as a lovable, charismatic, and tough-talking Yorkshireman.
	At times of bereavement, family and loved ones enter a state of shock and are at their most vulnerable. In a different country and culture, they need as much guidance and support as they can get, not just from our officials abroad but from the travel companies that organise their package holidays. From my experience, I can only praise the role played by British consulate staff in Rhodes, whose behaviour was exceptional. They showed great sensitivity and tact in dealing with the bureaucracy involved with repatriating a British citizen.
	The same was not true of the travel and insurance companies through which my friend had purchased his holiday, however. Dominic had booked his package holiday through Golden Sun Holidays, which I believe had a responsibility to deal with matters in the immediate aftermath of his death. His friends were obviously in a state of shock and grieving, yet they were not offered alternative accommodation and the bed sheets in the room in which Dominic stayed were not even changed. The standard of service that those young people, who were clearly in a state of shock, received was frankly not acceptable.
	Dealing with the death of a close friend and having to go through the painful process of informing the parents are burdens enough in themselves, but then to deal with an unknown bureaucracy in a foreign country with a foreign language is simply too much for people to cope with when they are at their most vulnerable.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will help to put pressure on the travel industry to create an industry-wide set of guidelines that can be given to all holidaymakers who suffer such a tragic loss abroad. Cannot we establish a code of conduct to which holiday companies can subscribe, to help to unravel the complex procedures that are involved in repatriating a deceased British citizen? Dominic's friends had not only to talk to the British consulate, but to deal with the travel company and its representatives, the insurance company, insurance underwriters, undertakers, airports and local police. They also suffered an interrogation on Rhodes that was similar to the one my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described.
	It is simply not acceptable for the industry to allow grieving people to fend for themselves in unfamiliar territory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider with our colleagues in Europe the establishment of an EU-wide set of guidelines to which the travel industry can subscribe. There have been many instances in which unnecessary bureaucracy has slowed down the burial of British citizens who have died abroad and prohibited families from grieving as they should in such tragic circumstances. It could be argued that the ability to bury one's loved one is a basic human right. I hope that he will take that point on board when he responds.
	Dominic McElroy was a great man who was lost to his family tragically early, at the age of 26. They deserve so much more from the travel company from which he purchased his holiday. I hope that we can work to ensure that other people in such tragic circumstances do not have to undergo the pain and misery that Dominic's friends suffered last August.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important topic. It is an indication of his commitment to his constituency that his first such debate is for the benefit and peace of mind of a family who live there. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) on his contribution. I was pleased to hear his comments about the professionalism of the British consulate in Rhodes. I am not aware of the details of the case that he raised, but I shall certainly take on board his point about the need for EU guidelines for the travel industry in respect of bereavement cases. Sadly, I am not responsible for the travel industry, which is dealt with by another Department, but I point out that the Foreign Office produces a booklet called "Dealing with Death Abroad", which is distributed by embassies.
	We were all disturbed to hear about the tragic death of Christopher Rochester in June 2000 and the ordeal of his bereaved family since then. To lose a young life is bad enough, but when it happens overseas and the circumstances are unclear, it must be much worse. On the death of a British citizen overseas, consular staff offer as much assistance as they can. Their primary role is to act as a liaison between the authorities in the country where the death has happened and the bereaved relatives, who are usually in the UK.
	If a close relative is present in the country where a death has occurred, our consular staff do their best to assist them in making arrangements for local burial or cremation, or the return of the deceased to the UK. One rule prevails: the welfare of the bereaved relatives must always be paramount.
	Let me turn to the specifics of Christopher's case, in which the unusual circumstances and developments overtook the regular pattern of consular activity following a death. Fortunately, as we have heard, Christopher's brother Keith was present and was able to act as a witness for the family. Christopher was returned to the UK relatively quickly and the coroner promptly drew the family's attention to his concerns about Christopher's treatment in hospital and to the findings of the Greek coroner in relation to the cause of his death. It was unusual for the British consulate to be asked to send on the kidney produced by the Greek authorities. Such matters would normally be the responsibility of international undertakers. To then find that the kidney did not belong to Christopher was as shocking for our consulate as it was for the coroner, and was devastating for the family. Our consulate in Rhodes and the embassy in Athens have passed on all messages, relayed questions and unofficially translated documents with great haste.
	I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend's difficulty in getting a response from the Greek ambassador in London. If he would like to speak to me about the matter after the debate, I can pass the message on to Baroness Amos, who is responsible for consular matters. I am sure that she will look into the matter for him.
	By encouraging the British and Greek coroners to speak to one another, we hope that at least the question of the missing kidney will be resolved. Our consulate is continuing to press Mr. Stefis, the Greek coroner, to take the matter further, professional to professional, with his British counterpart, Mr. Tweddle. The British coroner has given his verdict of accidental death contributed to by neglect. We understand that, as we have heard, the family are proceeding with their case through the courts. We believe that the Greek police investigation papers have been passed to the public prosecutor. Our embassy in Athens will keep a careful eye on developments. Our consul met the public prosecutor and Mr. Stefis on 17 October, which is yesterday, to discuss progress on the case. Mr. Stefis awaits further photographs from the British coroner, Mr. Tweddle, and the public prosecutor expects to release his report on the allegations of malpractice at Rhodes hospital by the end of November. It is encouraging that the Greek Minister of Justice has also taken a personal interest in the case. He recently telephoned the public prosecutor to make inquiries.
	We all hope that the case can be brought to a resolution as soon as possible. To prolong the distress of Christopher's family, especially at a time when bereaved relatives are very much in everyone's thoughts, would be unthinkable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Four o'clock.